(CNN) -- Argentina became the first Latin American country on Thursday to legalize same-sex marriage. Lawmakers in the Senate passed the bill after 14 hours of debate that began Wednesday and carried well into early Thursday morning, the state-run Telam news agency reported. The bill had already passed the lower chamber of Congress. It gives same-sex couples equal marriage rights, including the ability to adopt children. The law was backed by the center-left government of President Cristina Kirchner, who has said she will sign it. The majority Roman Catholic country follows a few others around the world where same-sex marriage is legal. Among them are the Netherlands, Belgium and Spain. Last month's congressional vote and Wednesday's Senate vote are the latest moves in a pro-gay marriage trend in Argentine politics. Last year, a judge in Buenos Aires ruled that a ban on same-sex marriage was illegal, paving the way for such marriages in the capital of Argentina. An injunction by another judge stopped what would have been the first same-sex marriage there. Ultimately, Latin America's first same-sex marriage happened in Argentina in a southern state with a pro-gay marriage governor.
I think it's a pretty big step; Argentina is just one of a few countries which recently (within the past year or so) granted same-sex marriage rights to their citizens. Also, the bill passed despite the fierce opposition of the Catholic Church (which, in light of recent events, seems pretty ironic). Does anyone know if the Catholic Church is losing its sway in Argentina? I know it's been a big problem for them in general in many parts of the world with church attendance dropping massively in the wake of all the sex-abuse scandals.
Anyway, your thoughts? And try to keep discussion civil. It's great to have your own opinion, but please remember not to flame others when expressing them.
I don't see the point of this marriage. For me marriage is about making and raising offsprings, two people passing on their bloodline together as nature intended, marriage also ensures protection for mother with kid financially most of the time. Without it you can just as well live together without any official procedures and papers.
On July 15 2010 22:42 Magic84 wrote: I don't see the point of this marriage. For me marriage is about making and raising offsprings, two people passing on their bloodline together as nature intended, marriage also ensures protection for mother with kid financially most of the time. Without it you can just as well live together without any official procedures and papers.
A lot of same sex marriages are for raising offspring through adoption?
Also, the bill passed despite the fierce opposition of the Catholic Church (which, in light of recent events, seems pretty ironic).
Which recent events? I'm sure I'm gonna feel stupid when you tell me but I can't think of any
The Catholic Church in this instance is ostensibly protecting err..."sexual sanctity" by not allowing gays to marry.
Have you seriously not been aware of the massive scandal involving former Cardinal Ratzinger (now the current Pope) covering up the sexual abuse of underage boys by (probably) homosexual priests?
$20 says that this thread will be closed due to excessive controversial discussion that turns into a flame war.
I am personally thrilled that Argentina is making these steps forward. After working for a gay boss over the past two years my perception on homosexuality as a whole has been completely turned upside down. There's really no reason for two men or two women to get married aside from the religious aspect, at least that's what it seems like nowadays. To be honest I don't know why I was against gay marriage prior to 2008 anyway. Bah brainwashing
Also, the bill passed despite the fierce opposition of the Catholic Church (which, in light of recent events, seems pretty ironic).
Which recent events? I'm sure I'm gonna feel stupid when you tell me but I can't think of any
The Catholic Church in this instance is ostensibly protecting err..."sexual sanctity" by not allowing gays to marry.
Have you seriously not been aware of the massive scandal involving former Cardinal Ratzinger (now the current Pope) covering up the sexual abuse of underage boys by (probably) homosexual priests?
That's not ironic though. It's perhaps a little hypocritical but then it's not as if they condone what was happening.
Also, the bill passed despite the fierce opposition of the Catholic Church (which, in light of recent events, seems pretty ironic).
Which recent events? I'm sure I'm gonna feel stupid when you tell me but I can't think of any
The Catholic Church in this instance is ostensibly protecting err..."sexual sanctity" by not allowing gays to marry.
Have you seriously not been aware of the massive scandal involving former Cardinal Ratzinger (now the current Pope) covering up the sexual abuse of underage boys by (probably) homosexual priests?
That's not ironic though. It's perhaps a little hypocritical but then it's not as if they condone what was happening.
Err, yeah, I suppose it is hypocritical, but isn't it situationally ironic that the Church would choose to really oppose one and try to cover up another?
Actually I think I just suck at English. I'm a stats major so it's to be expected
>_>
On July 15 2010 22:52 Amber[LighT] wrote: $20 says that this thread will be closed due to excessive controversial discussion that turns into a flame war.
I am personally thrilled that Argentina is making these steps forward. After working for a gay boss over the past two years my perception on homosexuality as a whole has been completely turned upside down. There's really no reason for two men or two women to get married aside from the religious aspect, at least that's what it seems like nowadays. To be honest I don't know why I was against gay marriage prior to 2008 anyway. Bah brainwashing
Haha, I had a little friendly "suggestion" at the bottom of my post for people to stay civil.
Anyway, I was talking to one of my gay friends who had an interesting take on marriage. He pretty much said "all right, you religious nuts [he's also an atheist] can keep your fucking "marriage." Call it a civil union if you want. If I love my boyfriend, we'll have a civil union. Just give us all the tax breaks."
I thought it was pretty interesting. Who cares what you call it as long as you get all the benefits, rights, and love your partner (and others know)?
On July 15 2010 22:42 Magic84 wrote: I don't see the point of this marriage. For me marriage is about making and raising offsprings, two people passing on their bloodline together as nature intended, marriage also ensures protection for mother with kid financially most of the time. Without it you can just as well live together without any official procedures and papers.
Well, there are also things to consider such as insurance coverage and tax deductions. Maybe not the most important part of marriage but they are still benefits that married couples get which are not given to people who simply live together.
On July 15 2010 22:42 Magic84 wrote: I don't see the point of this marriage. For me marriage is about making and raising offsprings, two people passing on their bloodline together as nature intended, marriage also ensures protection for mother with kid financially most of the time. Without it you can just as well live together without any official procedures and papers.
Well, there are also things to consider such as insurance coverage and tax deductions. Maybe not the most important part of marriage but they are still benefits that married couples get which are not given to people who simply live together.
IMO gay marriage is about two things:
1. Equality/pride (freedom and recognition basically) 2. The right to adopt kids, equal to the one of regular couples and not the one of singles.
Also, the bill passed despite the fierce opposition of the Catholic Church (which, in light of recent events, seems pretty ironic).
Which recent events? I'm sure I'm gonna feel stupid when you tell me but I can't think of any
The Catholic Church in this instance is ostensibly protecting err..."sexual sanctity" by not allowing gays to marry.
Have you seriously not been aware of the massive scandal involving former Cardinal Ratzinger (now the current Pope) covering up the sexual abuse of underage boys by (probably) homosexual priests?
That's not ironic though. It's perhaps a little hypocritical but then it's not as if they condone what was happening.
Err, yeah, I suppose it is hypocritical, but isn't it situationally ironic that the Church would choose to really oppose one and try to cover up another?
Actually I think I just suck at English. I'm a stats major so it's to be expected
On July 15 2010 22:52 Amber[LighT] wrote: $20 says that this thread will be closed due to excessive controversial discussion that turns into a flame war.
I am personally thrilled that Argentina is making these steps forward. After working for a gay boss over the past two years my perception on homosexuality as a whole has been completely turned upside down. There's really no reason for two men or two women to get married aside from the religious aspect, at least that's what it seems like nowadays. To be honest I don't know why I was against gay marriage prior to 2008 anyway. Bah brainwashing
Haha, I had a little friendly "suggestion" at the bottom of my post for people to stay civil.
Anyway, I was talking to one of my gay friends who had an interesting take on marriage. He pretty much said "all right, you religious nuts [he's also an atheist] can keep your fucking "marriage." Call it a civil union if you want. If I love my boyfriend, we'll have a civil union. Just give us all the tax breaks."
I thought it was pretty interesting. Who cares what you call it as long as you get all the benefits, rights, and love your partner (and others know)?
I think the issue that's brought up by the most gung-ho gay-rights activists is the issue of separate but equal. Even though you're not being treated any less than someone who is married, there's a different connotation between the two words. I think the opinion of your friend (and my boss too) is the realization that gay marriage is just not going to happen in their lifetime.
I mean New York has been battling this for years and most people consider the state to be "liberal" about policies, especially with the incredible GLBT population that exists in New York City alone. The state can't pass any legislation due to the 'old ways' of many northerners, but I'm not particularly knocking them because they just don't get it... they just aren't ready... and many people have just accepted it for what it is at the moment.
I think as more and more countries across the world begin to associate the GLBT audience as "equals" in the eye of the law the less people will care about the connotation of the word "marriage" and it's applicability.
Also, the bill passed despite the fierce opposition of the Catholic Church (which, in light of recent events, seems pretty ironic).
Which recent events? I'm sure I'm gonna feel stupid when you tell me but I can't think of any
The Catholic Church in this instance is ostensibly protecting err..."sexual sanctity" by not allowing gays to marry.
Have you seriously not been aware of the massive scandal involving former Cardinal Ratzinger (now the current Pope) covering up the sexual abuse of underage boys by (probably) homosexual priests?
That's not ironic though. It's perhaps a little hypocritical but then it's not as if they condone what was happening.
Err, yeah, I suppose it is hypocritical, but isn't it situationally ironic that the Church would choose to really oppose one and try to cover up another?
Actually I think I just suck at English. I'm a stats major so it's to be expected
On July 15 2010 22:52 Amber[LighT] wrote: $20 says that this thread will be closed due to excessive controversial discussion that turns into a flame war.
I am personally thrilled that Argentina is making these steps forward. After working for a gay boss over the past two years my perception on homosexuality as a whole has been completely turned upside down. There's really no reason for two men or two women to get married aside from the religious aspect, at least that's what it seems like nowadays. To be honest I don't know why I was against gay marriage prior to 2008 anyway. Bah brainwashing
Haha, I had a little friendly "suggestion" at the bottom of my post for people to stay civil.
Anyway, I was talking to one of my gay friends who had an interesting take on marriage. He pretty much said "all right, you religious nuts [he's also an atheist] can keep your fucking "marriage." Call it a civil union if you want. If I love my boyfriend, we'll have a civil union. Just give us all the tax breaks."
I thought it was pretty interesting. Who cares what you call it as long as you get all the benefits, rights, and love your partner (and others know)?
first of all the problem that you usually don't get the benefits in a civil union. Also the interesting question is why SHOULDN'T you allow two homosexuals allow to marry? Where is the need to call it differently? Therefore it's a good step (and it's important that it's called marriage (imo)) for equal rights.
Definitely a good thing without any negative aspects. Marriage is not necessarily religious (and definitely not necessarily christian/catholic) btw.
edit: also what the poster above me said. very good point.
Also, the bill passed despite the fierce opposition of the Catholic Church (which, in light of recent events, seems pretty ironic).
Which recent events? I'm sure I'm gonna feel stupid when you tell me but I can't think of any
The Catholic Church in this instance is ostensibly protecting err..."sexual sanctity" by not allowing gays to marry.
Have you seriously not been aware of the massive scandal involving former Cardinal Ratzinger (now the current Pope) covering up the sexual abuse of underage boys by (probably) homosexual priests?
That's not ironic though. It's perhaps a little hypocritical but then it's not as if they condone what was happening.
Err, yeah, I suppose it is hypocritical, but isn't it situationally ironic that the Church would choose to really oppose one and try to cover up another?
Actually I think I just suck at English. I'm a stats major so it's to be expected
>_>
On July 15 2010 22:52 Amber[LighT] wrote: $20 says that this thread will be closed due to excessive controversial discussion that turns into a flame war.
I am personally thrilled that Argentina is making these steps forward. After working for a gay boss over the past two years my perception on homosexuality as a whole has been completely turned upside down. There's really no reason for two men or two women to get married aside from the religious aspect, at least that's what it seems like nowadays. To be honest I don't know why I was against gay marriage prior to 2008 anyway. Bah brainwashing
Haha, I had a little friendly "suggestion" at the bottom of my post for people to stay civil.
Anyway, I was talking to one of my gay friends who had an interesting take on marriage. He pretty much said "all right, you religious nuts [he's also an atheist] can keep your fucking "marriage." Call it a civil union if you want. If I love my boyfriend, we'll have a civil union. Just give us all the tax breaks."
I thought it was pretty interesting. Who cares what you call it as long as you get all the benefits, rights, and love your partner (and others know)?
first of all the problem that you usually don't get the benefits in a civil union. Also the interesting question is why SHOULDN'T you allow two homosexuals allow to marry? Where is the need to call it differently? Therefore it's a good step (and it's important that it's called marriage (imo)) for equal rights.
Definitely a good thing without any negative aspects. Marriage is not necessarily religious (and definitely not necessarily christian/catholic) btw.
And I'd agree with you here, but America is a much more socially conservative country than Germany is, and there are millions of people who will zealously defend marriage as a "religious institution" specifically between a "man and a woman." My friend was just saying how as long as he got equal rights as straight people do, then he couldn't care less what the hell they called it. I just thought it was an interesting perspective.
But yeah, I agree with you that gays deserve all the rights as straights do (and that calling a gay marriage a "marriage" would be a great step). I just don't see it happening nationwide in America any time soon (especially in the Deep South, a historic bastion of ultra-conservative views).
In principle I don't see a reason why homosexuals shouldn't express their affection for eachother by getting married. However, when you think about it marriage doesn't only mean that you are allowed to have a big celebration, but also comes with many financial priviliges that are meant to encourage couples to be together and get children (e.g. tax cuts, money when you get a child, lower insurance rates, etc.). Most of those financial priviliges exist because for a family it means that they will lose income during the wife's pregnancy and while the child is very young. On top of that women are generally paid less than a man for an equal job. Financial advantages through marriage are meant to counteract those issues. However, in gay couples at least some of those issues don't exist. So what I wonder is: Should married gay couples really recieve all or any of those priviliges?
Also, the bill passed despite the fierce opposition of the Catholic Church (which, in light of recent events, seems pretty ironic).
Which recent events? I'm sure I'm gonna feel stupid when you tell me but I can't think of any
The Catholic Church in this instance is ostensibly protecting err..."sexual sanctity" by not allowing gays to marry.
Have you seriously not been aware of the massive scandal involving former Cardinal Ratzinger (now the current Pope) covering up the sexual abuse of underage boys by (probably) homosexual priests?
That's not ironic though. It's perhaps a little hypocritical but then it's not as if they condone what was happening.
Err, yeah, I suppose it is hypocritical, but isn't it situationally ironic that the Church would choose to really oppose one and try to cover up another?
Actually I think I just suck at English. I'm a stats major so it's to be expected
>_>
On July 15 2010 22:52 Amber[LighT] wrote: $20 says that this thread will be closed due to excessive controversial discussion that turns into a flame war.
I am personally thrilled that Argentina is making these steps forward. After working for a gay boss over the past two years my perception on homosexuality as a whole has been completely turned upside down. There's really no reason for two men or two women to get married aside from the religious aspect, at least that's what it seems like nowadays. To be honest I don't know why I was against gay marriage prior to 2008 anyway. Bah brainwashing
Haha, I had a little friendly "suggestion" at the bottom of my post for people to stay civil.
Anyway, I was talking to one of my gay friends who had an interesting take on marriage. He pretty much said "all right, you religious nuts [he's also an atheist] can keep your fucking "marriage." Call it a civil union if you want. If I love my boyfriend, we'll have a civil union. Just give us all the tax breaks."
I thought it was pretty interesting. Who cares what you call it as long as you get all the benefits, rights, and love your partner (and others know)?
first of all the problem that you usually don't get the benefits in a civil union. Also the interesting question is why SHOULDN'T you allow two homosexuals allow to marry? Where is the need to call it differently? Therefore it's a good step (and it's important that it's called marriage (imo)) for equal rights.
Definitely a good thing without any negative aspects. Marriage is not necessarily religious (and definitely not necessarily christian/catholic) btw.
And I'd agree with you here, but America is a much more socially conservative country than Germany is, and there are millions of people who will zealously defend marriage as a "religious institution" specifically between a "man and a woman." My friend was just saying how as long as he got equal rights as straight people do, then he couldn't care less what the hell they called it. I just thought it was an interesting perspective.
But yeah, I agree with you that gays deserve all the rights as straights do (and that calling a gay marriage a "marriage" would be a great step). I just don't see it happening nationwide in America any time soon (especially in the Deep South, a historic bastion of ultra-conservative views).
I did understand what you were saying and I totally agree with you. I just wanted to add that it is important that you call it marriage (eventually), too. It might be a first step (and a huge one) when you get the equal rights/benefits with a civil union for gay marriage, but eventually it's still not the same. Anyway even tho you can accept and work for the same rights with a civil union (because it's more realistic at least in the USA) you should always aim for total equality which includes calling it marriage.
On July 15 2010 22:42 Magic84 wrote: I don't see the point of this marriage. For me marriage is about making and raising offsprings, two people passing on their bloodline together as nature intended, marriage also ensures protection for mother with kid financially most of the time. Without it you can just as well live together without any official procedures and papers.
There are certain financial benefits of being married (gay or not), and I think adopting children becomes easier (?).
On July 15 2010 22:42 Magic84 wrote: I don't see the point of this marriage. For me marriage is about making and raising offsprings, two people passing on their bloodline together as nature intended, marriage also ensures protection for mother with kid financially most of the time. Without it you can just as well live together without any official procedures and papers.
Marriage is a social union or legal contract between individuals that creates kinship. It is an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged in a variety of ways, depending on the culture or subculture in which it is found.
@ wikipedia See how there is not a single word about children? It is because that is not the most improtant in marriage. You marry when you love someone not when you want to breed with someone.
On July 15 2010 23:15 ggrrg wrote: In principle I don't see a reason why homosexuals shouldn't express their affection for eachother by getting married. However, when you think about it marriage doesn't only mean that you are allowed to have a big celebration, but also comes with many financial priviliges that are meant to encourage couples to be together and get children (e.g. tax cuts, money when you get a child, lower insurance rates, etc.). Most of those financial priviliges exist because for a family it means that they will lose income during the wife's pregnancy and while the child is very young. On top of that women are generally paid less than a man for an equal job. Financial advantages through marriage are meant to counteract those issues. However, in gay couples at least some of those issues don't exist. So what I wonder is: Should married gay couples really recieve all or any of those priviliges?
Same-sex couples often do marry because they want to adopt kids. Why shouldn't they get the same financial privileges? Also there are a lot of straight married couples without kids, too. That women get paid less is a whole different problem which has nothing to do with financial benefits a marriage couple gets (besides a couple of two women should even get more money then).
So yes, they should receive all of those privileges.
On July 15 2010 23:15 ggrrg wrote: In principle I don't see a reason why homosexuals shouldn't express their affection for eachother by getting married. However, when you think about it marriage doesn't only mean that you are allowed to have a big celebration, but also comes with many financial priviliges that are meant to encourage couples to be together and get children (e.g. tax cuts, money when you get a child, lower insurance rates, etc.). Most of those financial priviliges exist because for a family it means that they will lose income during the wife's pregnancy and while the child is very young. On top of that women are generally paid less than a man for an equal job. Financial advantages through marriage are meant to counteract those issues. However, in gay couples at least some of those issues don't exist. So what I wonder is: Should married gay couples really recieve all or any of those priviliges?
Same-sex couples often do marry because they want to adopt kids. Why shouldn't they get the same financial privileges? Also there are a lot of straight married couples without kids, too. That women get paid less is a whole different problem which has nothing to do with financial benefits a marriage couple gets (besides a couple of two women should even get more money then).
So yes, they should receive all of those privileges.
Most of the people who are against same-sex marriage would not accept that argument, because they are also totally against those couples being able to adopt. Which has always struck me as the most ludicrous thing about the whole issue, since there are so many kids stuck in the system. It shocks me that these self-proclaimed "family values" people would rather see these kids rot in the system than be adopted by loving parents just because they are gay.
As for the tax breaks, they are not founded on the concepts you mention, they were founded in the era when women did not work at all. The breaks were designed so that one man's income could better support his wife and children. And that is still perfectly valid in a same-sex marriage, since one partner may want to be a stay-at-home parent for the adopted children.
On July 15 2010 22:42 Magic84 wrote: I don't see the point of this marriage. For me marriage is about making and raising offsprings, two people passing on their bloodline together as nature intended, marriage also ensures protection for mother with kid financially most of the time. Without it you can just as well live together without any official procedures and papers.
This was a mature way of expressing your opinion. I'll let you in on why it is necessary for same-sex marriages to be legal. Almost all countries grant different rights to married couples than to people who are just "together" in the eyes of the law. A gay couple in America, since they aren't married for instance, doesn't have the same rights as a married couple when hospital/taxes/military/etc... laws come into play. Due to that, everyone should be treated equal right? So allowing them to have married status in the eyes of the law gives them that equality.
Marriage isn't about making and raising offspring, passing on a bloodline or any of that, this is a common myth of marriage. If that were true, sterile couples shouldn't be allowed to be married due to them being sterile. Marriage is a legally binding contract declaring two people as a couple. That is it. In the eyes of the court system, there is nothing religious about it, nor can there be a religious involvement in the courts because it is unconstitutional.
On July 15 2010 23:15 ggrrg wrote: In principle I don't see a reason why homosexuals shouldn't express their affection for eachother by getting married. However, when you think about it marriage doesn't only mean that you are allowed to have a big celebration, but also comes with many financial priviliges that are meant to encourage couples to be together and get children (e.g. tax cuts, money when you get a child, lower insurance rates, etc.). Most of those financial priviliges exist because for a family it means that they will lose income during the wife's pregnancy and while the child is very young. On top of that women are generally paid less than a man for an equal job. Financial advantages through marriage are meant to counteract those issues. However, in gay couples at least some of those issues don't exist. So what I wonder is: Should married gay couples really recieve all or any of those priviliges?
Same-sex couples often do marry because they want to adopt kids. Why shouldn't they get the same financial privileges? Also there are a lot of straight married couples without kids, too. That women get paid less is a whole different problem which has nothing to do with financial benefits a marriage couple gets (besides a couple of two women should even get more money then).
So yes, they should receive all of those privileges.
Most of the people who are against same-sex marriage would not accept that argument, because they are also totally against those couples being able to adopt. Which has always struck me as the most ludicrous thing about the whole issue, since there are so many kids stuck in the system. It shocks me that these self-proclaimed "family values" people would rather see these kids rot in the system than be adopted by loving parents just because they are gay.
As for the tax breaks, they are not founded on the concepts you mention, they were founded in the era when women did not work at all. The breaks were designed so that one man's income could better support his wife and children. And that is still perfectly valid in a same-sex marriage, since one partner may want to be a stay-at-home parent for the adopted children.
Prejudice like this commonly makes one blind. Being against same-sex marriage makes you prejudiced. There is no logical, legal, philosophical, secular morally-binding methodology to justify being against same-sex marriage. It's commonly a deeply seeded prejudice that has to do with their religious views and/or upbringing. Your religious views or what irks you doesn't give you the right to deny others of rights.
On July 15 2010 22:52 Amber[LighT] wrote: $20 says that this thread will be closed due to excessive controversial discussion that turns into a flame war.
Probably true.
I am personally thrilled that Argentina is making these steps forward. After working for a gay boss over the past two years my perception on homosexuality as a whole has been completely turned upside down. There's really no reason for two men or two women to get married aside from the religious aspect, at least that's what it seems like nowadays. To be honest I don't know why I was against gay marriage prior to 2008 anyway. Bah brainwashing
But in all seriousness, I completely agree especially to the brainwashing in the media. I also worked with multiple gay people in some of my jobs and it has really made me realize that I can't come up with a logical explanation against it still despite so much hate for it throughout the media/slurs/whatever else.
It reminds me much of my initial opinions of religion when I was born, my parents were dedicated Christians and I essentially told them "screw that, this is stupid prove me wrong"...haven't had to go to church since and my parents stopped as well.
On July 15 2010 23:15 ggrrg wrote: In principle I don't see a reason why homosexuals shouldn't express their affection for eachother by getting married. However, when you think about it marriage doesn't only mean that you are allowed to have a big celebration, but also comes with many financial priviliges that are meant to encourage couples to be together and get children (e.g. tax cuts, money when you get a child, lower insurance rates, etc.). Most of those financial priviliges exist because for a family it means that they will lose income during the wife's pregnancy and while the child is very young. On top of that women are generally paid less than a man for an equal job. Financial advantages through marriage are meant to counteract those issues. However, in gay couples at least some of those issues don't exist. So what I wonder is: Should married gay couples really recieve all or any of those priviliges?
Should straight couples where one or more partner is sterile recieve those benefits? Marriage is about property, a concept which predates religion and only indirectly applies to children. Sterile couples or those who simply choose not to have children would need to be exempt from these benefits as well by your definition.
Don't couples receive those privileges to be in a prime position to start a family with kids? I thought the government promoted family life this way. So if gay couples are going to do that (through adoption or artificial insemination for lesbians) im fine with that. But I also think the concept of marriage as we know it is a christian event, and I think it's hypocrite to let gays marry in church, when the religion itself is against it. The two (state marriage and church marriage) should be treated separately.
If you ask me, having gay parents isn't really the best situation for kids either (gl in high school, son of a fairy ), but it can be a lot better than the situation they would be in otherwise.
On July 15 2010 22:42 Magic84 wrote: I don't see the point of this marriage. For me marriage is about making and raising offsprings, two people passing on their bloodline together as nature intended, marriage also ensures protection for mother with kid financially most of the time. Without it you can just as well live together without any official procedures and papers.
This was a mature way of expressing your opinion. I'll let you in on why it is necessary for same-sex marriages to be legal. Almost all countries grant different rights to married couples than to people who are just "together" in the eyes of the law. A gay couple in America, since they aren't married for instance, doesn't have the same rights as a married couple when hospital/taxes/military/etc... laws come into play. Due to that, everyone should be treated equal right? So allowing them to have married status in the eyes of the law gives them that equality.
Marriage isn't about making and raising offspring, passing on a bloodline or any of that, this is a common myth of marriage. If that were true, sterile couples shouldn't be allowed to be married due to them being sterile. Marriage is a legally binding contract declaring two people as a couple. That is it. In the eyes of the court system, there is nothing religious about it, nor can there be a religious involvement in the courts because it is unconstitutional.
On July 15 2010 23:15 ggrrg wrote: In principle I don't see a reason why homosexuals shouldn't express their affection for eachother by getting married. However, when you think about it marriage doesn't only mean that you are allowed to have a big celebration, but also comes with many financial priviliges that are meant to encourage couples to be together and get children (e.g. tax cuts, money when you get a child, lower insurance rates, etc.). Most of those financial priviliges exist because for a family it means that they will lose income during the wife's pregnancy and while the child is very young. On top of that women are generally paid less than a man for an equal job. Financial advantages through marriage are meant to counteract those issues. However, in gay couples at least some of those issues don't exist. So what I wonder is: Should married gay couples really recieve all or any of those priviliges?
Same-sex couples often do marry because they want to adopt kids. Why shouldn't they get the same financial privileges? Also there are a lot of straight married couples without kids, too. That women get paid less is a whole different problem which has nothing to do with financial benefits a marriage couple gets (besides a couple of two women should even get more money then).
So yes, they should receive all of those privileges.
Most of the people who are against same-sex marriage would not accept that argument, because they are also totally against those couples being able to adopt. Which has always struck me as the most ludicrous thing about the whole issue, since there are so many kids stuck in the system. It shocks me that these self-proclaimed "family values" people would rather see these kids rot in the system than be adopted by loving parents just because they are gay.
As for the tax breaks, they are not founded on the concepts you mention, they were founded in the era when women did not work at all. The breaks were designed so that one man's income could better support his wife and children. And that is still perfectly valid in a same-sex marriage, since one partner may want to be a stay-at-home parent for the adopted children.
Prejudice like this commonly makes one blind. Being against same-sex marriage makes you prejudiced. There is no logical, legal, philosophical, secular morally-binding methodology to justify being against same-sex marriage. It's commonly a deeply seeded prejudice that has to do with their religious views and/or upbringing. Your religious views or what irks you doesn't give you the right to deny others of rights.
I concur. They're not my views though.
Oh, and separation of church and state is a total farce. While technically a part of our laws, all non-religious arguments against same-sex marriage are spurious, thinly-veiled attempts by people to make their position seem like it's not based on religion. In reality, at least in the U.S., most people are against it because they have been brought up by the church to believe that it is evil. Regrettably, this religious population does still make up the majority of the voting adults, and their senators very much want to be reelected.
Despite the fact that not all Christians are Catholic, it really does come down to the Catholic Church's adamant refusal to adapt. I've seen many other sects of Christianity who either don't care, or wholeheartedly embrace the same-sex members of their congregations. Sadly, the Catholic church is generally seen as representative of the religion, at least in the eyes of the government.
On July 15 2010 23:15 ggrrg wrote: In principle I don't see a reason why homosexuals shouldn't express their affection for eachother by getting married. However, when you think about it marriage doesn't only mean that you are allowed to have a big celebration, but also comes with many financial priviliges that are meant to encourage couples to be together and get children (e.g. tax cuts, money when you get a child, lower insurance rates, etc.). Most of those financial priviliges exist because for a family it means that they will lose income during the wife's pregnancy and while the child is very young. On top of that women are generally paid less than a man for an equal job. Financial advantages through marriage are meant to counteract those issues. However, in gay couples at least some of those issues don't exist. So what I wonder is: Should married gay couples really recieve all or any of those priviliges?
Same-sex couples often do marry because they want to adopt kids. Why shouldn't they get the same financial privileges? Also there are a lot of straight married couples without kids, too. That women get paid less is a whole different problem which has nothing to do with financial benefits a marriage couple gets (besides a couple of two women should even get more money then).
So yes, they should receive all of those privileges.
Well, when a gay couple adopts a child they have skipped the 9-month pregnancy. If the child is not a newborn they have eventually skipped the first 9-12 months of the child's upbringing, which is a critical period in which a women cannot work. Thus such gay couples wouldn't suffer the loss of income a "normal" couple would have. In addition a women that gets out for pregnancy has severely diminished chances of being promoted (making a career) than both partners in a gay couple that can work without a break, when adopting (this also applies to lesbian couples, unless one of the partners gets artificially impregnated). Ultimately, I don't know what would be the best legislature on gay marriage. I agree that homosexual relationships should be accepted and not viewed as wrong. However, in many cases it seems difficult to justify all of the financial benefits gays would get by having a standard marriage. Maybe there should be special legislation on gay marriage taking different factors in consideration (e.g. female or a men couple).
On July 15 2010 23:49 aseq wrote: Don't couples receive those privileges to be in a prime position to start a family with kids? I thought the government promoted family life this way. So if gay couples are going to do that (through adoption or artificial insemination for lesbians) im fine with that. But I also think the concept of marriage as we know it is a christian event, and I think it's hypocrite to let gays marry in church, when the religion itself is against it. The two (state marriage and church marriage) should be treated separately.
If you ask me, having gay parents isn't really the best situation for kids either (gl in high school, son of a fairy ), but it can be a lot better than the situation they would be in otherwise.
The billions of Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc. in the world would like a word with you :/
EDIT: And what about sects of Christianity which condone gay marriage?
On July 15 2010 23:15 ggrrg wrote: In principle I don't see a reason why homosexuals shouldn't express their affection for eachother by getting married. However, when you think about it marriage doesn't only mean that you are allowed to have a big celebration, but also comes with many financial priviliges that are meant to encourage couples to be together and get children (e.g. tax cuts, money when you get a child, lower insurance rates, etc.). Most of those financial priviliges exist because for a family it means that they will lose income during the wife's pregnancy and while the child is very young. On top of that women are generally paid less than a man for an equal job. Financial advantages through marriage are meant to counteract those issues. However, in gay couples at least some of those issues don't exist. So what I wonder is: Should married gay couples really recieve all or any of those priviliges?
Same-sex couples often do marry because they want to adopt kids. Why shouldn't they get the same financial privileges? Also there are a lot of straight married couples without kids, too. That women get paid less is a whole different problem which has nothing to do with financial benefits a marriage couple gets (besides a couple of two women should even get more money then).
So yes, they should receive all of those privileges.
Well, when a gay couple adopts a child they have skipped the 9-month pregnancy. If the child is not a newborn they have eventually skipped the first 9-12 months of the child's upbringing, which is a critical period in which a women cannot work. Thus such gay couples wouldn't suffer the loss of income a "normal" couple would have. In addition a women that gets out for pregnancy has severely diminished chances of being promoted (making a career) than both partners in a gay couple that can work without a break, when adopting (this also applies to lesbian couples, unless one of the partners gets artificially impregnated). Ultimately, I don't know what would be the best legislature on gay marriage. I agree that homosexual relationships should be accepted and not viewed as wrong. However, in many cases it seems difficult to justify all of the financial benefits gays would get by having a standard marriage. Maybe there should be special legislation on gay marriage taking different factors in consideration (e.g. female or a men couple).
Again, see above. The laws predate the relatively modern convention that both parents work, and are from a time where women did not work at all.
Moreover, having separate laws governing the same thing has never, ever worked well at any point in history, regardless of whether or not it makes sense. It's just a bad move, because it generates unrest amongst the segments of the population that get the worse deal. Basically, until the laws are equal, the lobbying to change it is never going to end.
And I'd agree with you here, but America is a much more socially conservative country than Germany is, and there are millions of people who will zealously defend marriage as a "religious institution" specifically between a "man and a woman."
make no mistake here, gay marriage is not legal in germany!!!
On July 15 2010 23:15 ggrrg wrote: In principle I don't see a reason why homosexuals shouldn't express their affection for eachother by getting married. However, when you think about it marriage doesn't only mean that you are allowed to have a big celebration, but also comes with many financial priviliges that are meant to encourage couples to be together and get children (e.g. tax cuts, money when you get a child, lower insurance rates, etc.). Most of those financial priviliges exist because for a family it means that they will lose income during the wife's pregnancy and while the child is very young. On top of that women are generally paid less than a man for an equal job. Financial advantages through marriage are meant to counteract those issues. However, in gay couples at least some of those issues don't exist. So what I wonder is: Should married gay couples really recieve all or any of those priviliges?
Same-sex couples often do marry because they want to adopt kids. Why shouldn't they get the same financial privileges? Also there are a lot of straight married couples without kids, too. That women get paid less is a whole different problem which has nothing to do with financial benefits a marriage couple gets (besides a couple of two women should even get more money then).
So yes, they should receive all of those privileges.
Well, when a gay couple adopts a child they have skipped the 9-month pregnancy. If the child is not a newborn they have eventually skipped the first 9-12 months of the child's upbringing, which is a critical period in which a women cannot work. Thus such gay couples wouldn't suffer the loss of income a "normal" couple would have. In addition a women that gets out for pregnancy has severely diminished chances of being promoted (making a career) than both partners in a gay couple that can work without a break, when adopting (this also applies to lesbian couples, unless one of the partners gets artificially impregnated). Ultimately, I don't know what would be the best legislature on gay marriage. I agree that homosexual relationships should be accepted and not viewed as wrong. However, in many cases it seems difficult to justify all of the financial benefits gays would get by having a standard marriage. Maybe there should be special legislation on gay marriage taking different factors in consideration (e.g. female or a men couple).
there are 2 or 3 persons who posted after me with way more logical and reasonable explanations what marriage is based on and what the financial aids are for. They also explained very nicely why they should apply to same-sex couples too.
And I'd agree with you here, but America is a much more socially conservative country than Germany is, and there are millions of people who will zealously defend marriage as a "religious institution" specifically between a "man and a woman."
make no mistake here, gay marriage is not legal in germany!!!
Right, but Germans are, on a population level, much more socially liberal than Americans are. Compare your healthcare system, for example, to the millions of Americans who are scared that a government option for health insurance is an unacceptable form of socialism that'll turn America into a fascist country (I'm not making this up).
EDIT: Also population acceptance of man-made global warming (not even a social issue...it's a scientific issue here), women's rights in abortion, etc. On virtually every contentious issue, the German population is much more socially liberal than the American population is.
On July 15 2010 23:57 JWD wrote: American law looking more and more backwards on this issue.
Heh, it has nothing to do with law, since there is not actually anything on the books that prevents same-sex marriage. It has everything to do with the large segment of the population that is rabidly against it, and their senators caring more about getting reelected than resolving issues. But that's the way it's always been. For small stuff, resolution is possible, for the big stuff, everyone just talks endlessly about it until someone has the balls to actually fix the problem.
This kind of stuff just makes me so depressed. There are millions of people out there without a home, education, job, healthcare, etc, and the government wastes time debating if 2 people should be allowed to be happy without affecting anyone else?
Good for Argentina though, just more examples of how the US can still take lessons from other countries.
On July 15 2010 23:49 aseq wrote: Don't couples receive those privileges to be in a prime position to start a family with kids? I thought the government promoted family life this way. So if gay couples are going to do that (through adoption or artificial insemination for lesbians) im fine with that. But I also think the concept of marriage as we know it is a christian event, and I think it's hypocrite to let gays marry in church, when the religion itself is against it. The two (state marriage and church marriage) should be treated separately.
If you ask me, having gay parents isn't really the best situation for kids either (gl in high school, son of a fairy ), but it can be a lot better than the situation they would be in otherwise.
This is something I see fairly often that needs to be addressed. You yourself point out in the next sentence that state marriage and church marriage should be treated separately. That's exactly how it works now, and it's exactly how it will continue to work after gay marriage is legalized.
Legalizing gay marriage does nothing to churches that don't want to marry gay people, they can continue to do so. What it does allow is for gay couples to become married in the eyes of the law, granting certain benefits, rights and responsibilities.
No religion is being forced to marry gay couples.
Also there are various church denominations out there that already are open to marrying gay couples as others have pointed out.
On July 15 2010 23:49 aseq wrote: If you ask me, having gay parents isn't really the best situation for kids either (gl in high school, son of a fairy ), but it can be a lot better than the situation they would be in otherwise.
And here you're just being prejudiced. Son of a fairy? Wow. In a thread like this you should probably refrain from posting statements like that and learn to debate properly.
On July 15 2010 23:57 JWD wrote: American law looking more and more backwards on this issue.
Heh, it has nothing to do with law, since there is not actually anything on the books that prevents same-sex marriage.
What? Many states have laws that specify marriage is between a man and a woman. The Federal government has no authority to make such a law, but has done its part with the Defense of Marriage Act, which provides that states do not have to recognize other states' same-sex marriages. Furthermore we have a Supreme Court that has held (if in dicta) that the Constitution does not invalidate same-sex marriage bans. So yes, American law is quite backwards on same-sex marriage.
Even if there was nothing on the books to get in the way of same-sex marriage, this issue would still have to do with the law because the only way to get same-sex marriage in some (especially Red) states in the foreseeable future is through some Supreme Court decision or Federal statute.
On July 16 2010 00:00 Empyrean wrote: Right, but Germans are, on a population level, much more socially liberal than Americans are. Compare your healthcare system, for example, to the millions of Americans who are scared that a government option for health insurance is an unacceptable form of socialism that'll turn America into a fascist country (I'm not making this up).
EDIT: Also population acceptance of man-made global warming (not even a social issue...it's a scientific issue here), women's rights in abortion, etc. On virtually every contentious issue, the German population is much more socially liberal than the American population is.
all good and true examples, i just wanted to make this clear since even many germans seem to forget that in gay rights we are as backwards as you hillbillies . for example when the prop 8?9? (sorry forgot to lazy to check) was going on there were many german commentaries about the old fashioned american society, while totally blending out how "modern" ours is in this field.
On July 15 2010 23:49 aseq wrote: Don't couples receive those privileges to be in a prime position to start a family with kids? I thought the government promoted family life this way. So if gay couples are going to do that (through adoption or artificial insemination for lesbians) im fine with that. But I also think the concept of marriage as we know it is a christian event, and I think it's hypocrite to let gays marry in church, when the religion itself is against it. The two (state marriage and church marriage) should be treated separately.
If you ask me, having gay parents isn't really the best situation for kids either (gl in high school, son of a fairy ), but it can be a lot better than the situation they would be in otherwise.
*Phsyduck picture*
Can you tell me why straight sterile people can get married? I'd really like someone to answer that question.
Marriage is neither a strictly Christian concept, nor is it even a religious concept. To get married, to need to go to the town hall and obtain a marriage license, the actual church ceremony is all pomp and circumstance and has no bearing on whether or not you are married.
The concept of marriage is about property. A man "buys" his wife from her previous family, traditionally in the way of a dowery. Now, most people can agree that the base motives for marriage (owning a wife) are largely irrelevent in western society. The other aspects, such as having visitation rights and the final say in legal matters over your spouse can be seen as modern extensions of this concept.
The idea that marriage is primarily for procreation was dead before homosexuality is even considered. It's socially acceptable to be married and never have children. Likewise, it's socially acceptable to have children and never get married. In fact, most countries have even implemented laws creating common-law marriages that protect couples who have cohabitated for significant periods of time regardless of other factors.
On July 15 2010 23:49 aseq wrote: Don't couples receive those privileges to be in a prime position to start a family with kids? I thought the government promoted family life this way. So if gay couples are going to do that (through adoption or artificial insemination for lesbians) im fine with that. But I also think the concept of marriage as we know it is a christian event, and I think it's hypocrite to let gays marry in church, when the religion itself is against it. The two (state marriage and church marriage) should be treated separately.
If you ask me, having gay parents isn't really the best situation for kids either (gl in high school, son of a fairy ), but it can be a lot better than the situation they would be in otherwise.
This is something I see fairly often that needs to be addressed. You yourself point out in the next sentence that state marriage and church marriage should be treated separately. That's exactly how it works now, and it's exactly how it will continue to work after gay marriage is legalized.
Legalizing gay marriage does nothing to churches that don't want to marry gay people, they can continue to do so. What it does allow is for gay couples to become married in the eyes of the law, granting certain benefits, rights and responsibilities.
No religion is being forced to marry gay couples.
Also there are various church denominations out there that already are open to marrying gay couples as others have pointed out.
Just wanted to agree, and say that GogoKodo raises some very good points that are often overlooked by those opposed to legalizing gay marriage.
On July 15 2010 22:42 Magic84 wrote: I don't see the point of this marriage. For me marriage is about making and raising offsprings, two people passing on their bloodline together as nature intended, marriage also ensures protection for mother with kid financially most of the time. Without it you can just as well live together without any official procedures and papers.
A lot of same sex marriages are for raising offspring through adoption?
What's next, marriage with female goats? Zoophiles have rights too. I hope you won't claim that's it's improper comparison, we talk about sexual orientations here, and those are notably common. So what if one is not human, the brain consists of pretty much same neural connections, dogs have feelings and love too. You won't believe how many people would marry a dog, and why would society deprive those people of their rights? And this married couple can always adopt a kid.
How can people automatically assume that such environment is healthy for the child? Healthy for his interaction with other kids and social life? Isn't it taking human's life worth of a risk for the sake or your own fun and pride?
Then there's some dude in Japan that married a pillow with anime face on it, let's just make marriage a joke, a vague concept just so everybody can have pride and equality, hell, just abolish marriage, this concept is outdated and unfair.
On July 15 2010 22:42 Magic84 wrote: I don't see the point of this marriage. For me marriage is about making and raising offsprings, two people passing on their bloodline together as nature intended, marriage also ensures protection for mother with kid financially most of the time. Without it you can just as well live together without any official procedures and papers.
A lot of same sex marriages are for raising offspring through adoption?
How can people automatically assume that such environment is healthy for the child? Healthy for his interaction with other kids and social life? Isn't it taking human's life worth of a risk for the sake or your own fun and pride?
I would gladly have two fathers or two mothers instead of a father who drinks too much, gets violent and abusive towards my mother, and molests me at night.
On July 15 2010 22:42 Magic84 wrote: I don't see the point of this marriage. For me marriage is about making and raising offsprings, two people passing on their bloodline together as nature intended, marriage also ensures protection for mother with kid financially most of the time. Without it you can just as well live together without any official procedures and papers.
A lot of same sex marriages are for raising offspring through adoption?
What's next, marriage with female goats? Zoophiles have rights too. I hope you won't claim that's it's improper comparison, we talk about sexual orientations here, and those are notably common. So what if one is not human, the brain consists of pretty much same neural connections, dogs have feelings and love too. You won't believe how many people would marry a dog, and why would society deprive those people of their rights? And this married couple can always adopt a kid.
How can people automatically assume that such environment is healthy for the child? Healthy for his interaction with other kids and social life? Isn't it taking human's life worth of a risk for the sake or your own fun and pride?
Then there's some dude in Japan that married a pillow with anime face on it, let's just make marriage a joke, a vague concept just so everybody can have pride and equality, hell, just abolish marriage, this concept is outdated and unfair.
Too EZ. Because I'm going to try and get back to sleep, I'll let someone else address this lunacy.
On July 15 2010 23:57 JWD wrote: American law looking more and more backwards on this issue.
Heh, it has nothing to do with law, since there is not actually anything on the books that prevents same-sex marriage.
What? Many states have laws that specify marriage is between a man and a woman. The Federal government has no authority to make such a law, but has done its part with the Defense of Marriage Act, which provides that states do not have to recognize other states' same-sex marriages. Furthermore we have a Supreme Court that has held (if in dicta) that the Constitution does not invalidate same-sex marriage bans. So yes, American law is quite backwards on same-sex marriage.
Even if there was nothing on the books to get in the way of same-sex marriage, this issue would still have to do with the law because the only way to get same-sex marriage in some (especially Red) states in the foreseeable future is through some Supreme Court decision or Federal statute.
Yes, I misspoke. I meant to say that, until people started making such a big deal about it a few years ago, there were no federal laws that stood in the way. I sometimes forget that this country is so messed up that you have to know 50 states' individual laws to get around.
On July 16 2010 00:00 Empyrean wrote: Right, but Germans are, on a population level, much more socially liberal than Americans are. Compare your healthcare system, for example, to the millions of Americans who are scared that a government option for health insurance is an unacceptable form of socialism that'll turn America into a fascist country (I'm not making this up).
EDIT: Also population acceptance of man-made global warming (not even a social issue...it's a scientific issue here), women's rights in abortion, etc. On virtually every contentious issue, the German population is much more socially liberal than the American population is.
all good and true examples, i just wanted to make this clear since even many germans seem to forget that in gay rights we are as backwards as you hillbillies . for example when the prop 8?9? (sorry forgot to lazy to check) was going on there were many german commentaries about the old fashioned american society, while totally blending out how "modern" ours is in this field.
The pro prop 8 people got absolutely destroyed during the trial though. The most important part of prop 8 wasn't the "is gay marriage a sin?" bullshit but the fact that prop 8's defence needed to prove that gay marriage was inherently harmful to both those involved and society as a whole.
Walker still hasn't rendered a verdict, which is dissappointing to say the least. It should be out by the end of the summer though.
On July 15 2010 22:42 Magic84 wrote: I don't see the point of this marriage. For me marriage is about making and raising offsprings, two people passing on their bloodline together as nature intended, marriage also ensures protection for mother with kid financially most of the time. Without it you can just as well live together without any official procedures and papers.
A lot of same sex marriages are for raising offspring through adoption?
How can people automatically assume that such environment is healthy for the child? Healthy for his interaction with other kids and social life? Isn't it taking human's life worth of a risk for the sake or your own fun and pride?
I would gladly have two fathers or two mothers instead of a father who drinks too much, gets violent and abusive towards my mother, and molests me at night.
This. Seriously, where do people get off trying to dictate who would make suitable parents? I know many, many straight couples who would make awful parents, and I don't see anyone trying to tell them that they can't have kids.
Moreover, I cannot believe that people are still touting that old line that children of same-sex couples are messed up. That was disproven a long, long time ago.
On July 15 2010 22:42 Magic84 wrote: I don't see the point of this marriage. For me marriage is about making and raising offsprings, two people passing on their bloodline together as nature intended, marriage also ensures protection for mother with kid financially most of the time. Without it you can just as well live together without any official procedures and papers.
A lot of same sex marriages are for raising offspring through adoption?
What's next, marriage with female goats? Zoophiles have rights too. I hope you won't claim that's it's improper comparison, we talk about sexual orientations here, and those are notably common. So what if one is not human, the brain consists of pretty much same neural connections, dogs have feelings and love too. You won't believe how many people would marry a dog, and why would society deprive those people of their rights? And this married couple can always adopt a kid.
On July 15 2010 22:42 Magic84 wrote: I don't see the point of this marriage. For me marriage is about making and raising offsprings, two people passing on their bloodline together as nature intended, marriage also ensures protection for mother with kid financially most of the time. Without it you can just as well live together without any official procedures and papers.
A lot of same sex marriages are for raising offspring through adoption?
What's next, marriage with female goats? Zoophiles have rights too. I hope you won't claim that's it's improper comparison, we talk about sexual orientations here, and those are notably common. So what if one is not human, the brain consists of pretty much same neural connections, dogs have feelings and love too. You won't believe how many people would marry a dog, and why would society deprive those people of their rights? And this married couple can always adopt a kid.
How can people automatically assume that such environment is healthy for the child? Healthy for his interaction with other kids and social life? Isn't it taking human's life worth of a risk for the sake or your own fun and pride?
Then there's some dude in Japan that married a pillow with anime face on it, let's just make marriage a joke, a vague concept just so everybody can have pride and equality, hell, just abolish marriage, this concept is outdated and unfair.
Just imagine some white person have the ridiculous idea of marrying a black person. that would be awkward and definitely not healthy for anyone.
On July 15 2010 22:42 Magic84 wrote: I don't see the point of this marriage. For me marriage is about making and raising offsprings, two people passing on their bloodline together as nature intended, marriage also ensures protection for mother with kid financially most of the time. Without it you can just as well live together without any official procedures and papers.
A lot of same sex marriages are for raising offspring through adoption?
How can people automatically assume that such environment is healthy for the child? Healthy for his interaction with other kids and social life? Isn't it taking human's life worth of a risk for the sake or your own fun and pride?
I would gladly have two fathers or two mothers instead of a father who drinks too much, gets violent and abusive towards my mother, and molests me at night.
This. Seriously, where do people get off trying to dictate who would make suitable parents? I know many, many straight couples who would make awful parents, and I don't see anyone trying to tell them that they can't have kids.
Moreover, I cannot believe that people are still touting that old line that children of same-sex couples are messed up. That was disproven a long, long time ago.
Hell, if I had a choice, right now, between giving a kid to the most recent couple on my facebook page to have a baby and one of my gay friends from high school and his long term boyfriend. I would give it to the latter.
On July 15 2010 22:42 Magic84 wrote: I don't see the point of this marriage. For me marriage is about making and raising offsprings, two people passing on their bloodline together as nature intended, marriage also ensures protection for mother with kid financially most of the time. Without it you can just as well live together without any official procedures and papers.
A lot of same sex marriages are for raising offspring through adoption?
How can people automatically assume that such environment is healthy for the child? Healthy for his interaction with other kids and social life? Isn't it taking human's life worth of a risk for the sake or your own fun and pride?
I would gladly have two fathers or two mothers instead of a father who drinks too much, gets violent and abusive towards my mother, and molests me at night.
But what if there are 2 fathers who'd molest you at night instead, and no mom. See how easy it is to argue this way?
I live in the most segregated country on earth. At least when it comes to religion and the state. We even have female priests, something that caused outrage with some of the more fanatic american groups. We are gay loving satan huggers \o/. Isn't the entire point of marriage that you and your spous goes "Sup' God we kinda like each other and would like to stay together, just thought we would give you a memo", because in Sweden you can get a non religious marriage, meaning that you have a fancy dress and a fancy party and all that, but you don't mention god aswell as gaining all legal stuff that is associated with marriages.
Or you could just get a partnership, were you skip all the cermonies and just go sign a paper that gives the same rights as a married couple. So to turn back to the point, isn't marriages just a religious ritual were you and your loved ones tells god that you want to be together? If so, it's ridiculous to outlaw it, because what possible harm could it do? It's kind of annoying always seeing these people crusade about an issue that's clearly stated in ze bibel that you shouldn't do. You're not supposed to be the religious police, that's a major freaking point in most religions. Humans arn't the ones who are supposed to judge you, that's a huge part of christianity.
So, is it that the other ways of getting all the legal done without the religious cermony in US that we have here, doesn't exist? If they do, and infact even if they arn't, they really should be. If they are, why would people even contemplate not letting them get married? I mean if god really hates that, he will have a very stern talk with them in the afterlife.
On July 15 2010 22:42 Magic84 wrote: I don't see the point of this marriage. For me marriage is about making and raising offsprings, two people passing on their bloodline together as nature intended, marriage also ensures protection for mother with kid financially most of the time. Without it you can just as well live together without any official procedures and papers.
A lot of same sex marriages are for raising offspring through adoption?
How can people automatically assume that such environment is healthy for the child? Healthy for his interaction with other kids and social life? Isn't it taking human's life worth of a risk for the sake or your own fun and pride?
I would gladly have two fathers or two mothers instead of a father who drinks too much, gets violent and abusive towards my mother, and molests me at night.
But what if there are 2 fathers who'd molest you at night instead, and no mom. See how easy it is to argue this way?
Sorry, I should've been more clear. Two loving fathers.
On July 15 2010 22:42 Magic84 wrote: I don't see the point of this marriage. For me marriage is about making and raising offsprings, two people passing on their bloodline together as nature intended, marriage also ensures protection for mother with kid financially most of the time. Without it you can just as well live together without any official procedures and papers.
A lot of same sex marriages are for raising offspring through adoption?
How can people automatically assume that such environment is healthy for the child? Healthy for his interaction with other kids and social life? Isn't it taking human's life worth of a risk for the sake or your own fun and pride?
I would gladly have two fathers or two mothers instead of a father who drinks too much, gets violent and abusive towards my mother, and molests me at night.
But what if there are 2 fathers who'd molest you at night instead, and no mom. See how easy it is to argue this way?
Amazing that you missed his point completely. Amazing. /flabbergasted.
On July 15 2010 22:42 Magic84 wrote: I don't see the point of this marriage. For me marriage is about making and raising offsprings, two people passing on their bloodline together as nature intended, marriage also ensures protection for mother with kid financially most of the time. Without it you can just as well live together without any official procedures and papers.
A lot of same sex marriages are for raising offspring through adoption?
How can people automatically assume that such environment is healthy for the child? Healthy for his interaction with other kids and social life? Isn't it taking human's life worth of a risk for the sake or your own fun and pride?
I would gladly have two fathers or two mothers instead of a father who drinks too much, gets violent and abusive towards my mother, and molests me at night.
But what if there are 2 fathers who'd molest you at night instead, and no mom. See how easy it is to argue this way?
Dude, come off it. You have to realize that what you are arguing (that same-sex parenting is inferior) is wrong wrong wrong, it's like arguing that the Earth isn't round.
There is a consensus among credible scientific researchers which confirms the abilities of gay and lesbian persons as parents, and finds positive outcomes for their children. Statements by the leading associations of experts in this area reflect professional consensus that children raised by lesbian or gay parents do not differ in any important respects from those raised by heterosexual parents. No credible empirical research suggests otherwise.[8]
I mean this is Wikipedia here, not some "loony" gay rights blog. Get your facts straight, Magic84. Also I'll add that nobody is going to bug you if you change your mind on this issue. Actually that would be fantastic.
On July 15 2010 22:42 Magic84 wrote: I don't see the point of this marriage. For me marriage is about making and raising offsprings, two people passing on their bloodline together as nature intended, marriage also ensures protection for mother with kid financially most of the time. Without it you can just as well live together without any official procedures and papers.
A lot of same sex marriages are for raising offspring through adoption?
How can people automatically assume that such environment is healthy for the child? Healthy for his interaction with other kids and social life? Isn't it taking human's life worth of a risk for the sake or your own fun and pride?
I would gladly have two fathers or two mothers instead of a father who drinks too much, gets violent and abusive towards my mother, and molests me at night.
But what if there are 2 fathers who'd molest you at night instead, and no mom. See how easy it is to argue this way?
You missed his point completly. The point is that there are a ton of unfit straight parents around, and a ton of very fit gay parents around. Not that unfit gay parents doesn't exist. Your argument is flawed.
On July 16 2010 00:27 Ossian wrote: so is the law that all priests have an obligation to marry gay couples or is it just that the state will not interfere?
Like someone said earlier. Getting married by a priest or elvis doesn't make a difference in law. You just need a marriage license.
On July 15 2010 22:42 Magic84 wrote: I don't see the point of this marriage. For me marriage is about making and raising offsprings, two people passing on their bloodline together as nature intended, marriage also ensures protection for mother with kid financially most of the time. Without it you can just as well live together without any official procedures and papers.
A lot of same sex marriages are for raising offspring through adoption?
How can people automatically assume that such environment is healthy for the child? Healthy for his interaction with other kids and social life? Isn't it taking human's life worth of a risk for the sake or your own fun and pride?
I would gladly have two fathers or two mothers instead of a father who drinks too much, gets violent and abusive towards my mother, and molests me at night.
But what if there are 2 fathers who'd molest you at night instead, and no mom. See how easy it is to argue this way?
Dude, come off it. You have to realize that what you are arguing (that same-sex parenting is inferior) is wrong wrong wrong, it's like arguing that the Earth isn't round.
There is a consensus among credible scientific researchers which confirms the abilities of gay and lesbian persons as parents, and finds positive outcomes for their children. Statements by the leading associations of experts in this area reflect professional consensus that children raised by lesbian or gay parents do not differ in any important respects from those raised by heterosexual parents. No credible empirical research suggests otherwise.[8]
I mean this is Wikipedia here, not some "loony" gay rights blog. Get your facts straight, Magic84. Also I'll add that nobody is going to bug you if you change your mind on this issue. Actually that would be fantastic.
Scientific arguments have no impact on these people. Remember, there are still a vast number of people who refuse to accept Evolution.
I submit for your perusal http://creationmuseum.org/ That thing opened in 2007. It is a 27 million dollar attempt to show that evolution never happened, and lots of people go to it.
I am waiting for them to declare that the world is flat again.
On July 15 2010 22:42 Magic84 wrote: I don't see the point of this marriage. For me marriage is about making and raising offsprings, two people passing on their bloodline together as nature intended, marriage also ensures protection for mother with kid financially most of the time. Without it you can just as well live together without any official procedures and papers.
A lot of same sex marriages are for raising offspring through adoption?
How can people automatically assume that such environment is healthy for the child? Healthy for his interaction with other kids and social life? Isn't it taking human's life worth of a risk for the sake or your own fun and pride?
I would gladly have two fathers or two mothers instead of a father who drinks too much, gets violent and abusive towards my mother, and molests me at night.
But what if there are 2 fathers who'd molest you at night instead, and no mom. See how easy it is to argue this way?
Dude, come off it. You have to realize that what you are arguing (that same-sex parenting is inferior) is wrong wrong wrong, it's like arguing that the Earth isn't round.
There is a consensus among credible scientific researchers which confirms the abilities of gay and lesbian persons as parents, and finds positive outcomes for their children. Statements by the leading associations of experts in this area reflect professional consensus that children raised by lesbian or gay parents do not differ in any important respects from those raised by heterosexual parents. No credible empirical research suggests otherwise.[8]
I mean this is Wikipedia here, not some "loony" gay rights blog. Get your facts straight, Magic84. Also I'll add that nobody is going to bug you if you change your mind on this issue. Actually that would be fantastic.
Scientific arguments have no impact on these people. Remember, there are still a vast number of people who refuse to accept Evolution.
I submit for your perusal http://creationmuseum.org/ That thing opened in 2007. It is a 27 million dollar attempt to show that evolution never happened, and lots of people go to it.
I am waiting for them to declare that the world is flat again.
I still think debate is productive, though. Hearing and considering other people's opinions makes people question their own positions. It may be tempting to categorically dismiss people as not having the intellectual fortitude to examine their beliefs, but that attitude won't change anything.
On July 15 2010 22:42 Magic84 wrote: I don't see the point of this marriage. For me marriage is about making and raising offsprings, two people passing on their bloodline together as nature intended, marriage also ensures protection for mother with kid financially most of the time. Without it you can just as well live together without any official procedures and papers.
A lot of same sex marriages are for raising offspring through adoption?
How can people automatically assume that such environment is healthy for the child? Healthy for his interaction with other kids and social life? Isn't it taking human's life worth of a risk for the sake or your own fun and pride?
I would gladly have two fathers or two mothers instead of a father who drinks too much, gets violent and abusive towards my mother, and molests me at night.
But what if there are 2 fathers who'd molest you at night instead, and no mom. See how easy it is to argue this way?
Dude, come off it. You have to realize that what you are arguing (that same-sex parenting is inferior) is wrong wrong wrong, it's like arguing that the Earth isn't round.
There is a consensus among credible scientific researchers which confirms the abilities of gay and lesbian persons as parents, and finds positive outcomes for their children. Statements by the leading associations of experts in this area reflect professional consensus that children raised by lesbian or gay parents do not differ in any important respects from those raised by heterosexual parents. No credible empirical research suggests otherwise.[8]
I mean this is Wikipedia here, not some "loony" gay rights blog. Get your facts straight, Magic84. Also I'll add that nobody is going to bug you if you change your mind on this issue. Actually that would be fantastic.
Scientific arguments have no impact on these people. Remember, there are still a vast number of people who refuse to accept Evolution.
I submit for your perusal http://creationmuseum.org/ That thing opened in 2007. It is a 27 million dollar attempt to show that evolution never happened, and lots of people go to it.
I am waiting for them to declare that the world is flat again.
I still think debate is productive, though. Hearing and considering other people's opinions makes people question their own positions. It may be tempting to categorically dismiss people as not having the intellectual fortitude to examine their beliefs, but that attitude won't change anything.
Yeah I agree, but sometimes it can be frustrating. And you know, take a poster like Magic84. He's completely wrong but at least he's here laying his position out on the line and (hopefully) reading our responses. That's better than the 90% of TL users opposed to gay marriage who may have read one line of something they didn't like in this thread and then closed their browser window.
It's interesting though how steadily the debate over same-sex marriage is approaching stasis like the debate over creationism. We have one side that has all of the scientific evidence and all of the rational arguments, and on the other side a group of uninformed or obstinate, closed-minded people that are grasping at straws to justify their position.
On July 16 2010 00:27 Ossian wrote: so is the law that all priests have an obligation to marry gay couples or is it just that the state will not interfere?
Like someone said earlier. Getting married by a priest or elvis doesn't make a difference in law. You just need a marriage license.
yeah but does a priest have the right to refuse a couple trying to get married?
On July 15 2010 23:15 ggrrg wrote: In principle I don't see a reason why homosexuals shouldn't express their affection for eachother by getting married. However, when you think about it marriage doesn't only mean that you are allowed to have a big celebration, but also comes with many financial priviliges that are meant to encourage couples to be together and get children (e.g. tax cuts, money when you get a child, lower insurance rates, etc.). Most of those financial priviliges exist because for a family it means that they will lose income during the wife's pregnancy and while the child is very young. On top of that women are generally paid less than a man for an equal job. Financial advantages through marriage are meant to counteract those issues. However, in gay couples at least some of those issues don't exist. So what I wonder is: Should married gay couples really recieve all or any of those priviliges?
Same-sex couples often do marry because they want to adopt kids. Why shouldn't they get the same financial privileges? Also there are a lot of straight married couples without kids, too. That women get paid less is a whole different problem which has nothing to do with financial benefits a marriage couple gets (besides a couple of two women should even get more money then).
So yes, they should receive all of those privileges.
Well, when a gay couple adopts a child they have skipped the 9-month pregnancy. If the child is not a newborn they have eventually skipped the first 9-12 months of the child's upbringing, which is a critical period in which a women cannot work. Thus such gay couples wouldn't suffer the loss of income a "normal" couple would have. In addition a women that gets out for pregnancy has severely diminished chances of being promoted (making a career) than both partners in a gay couple that can work without a break, when adopting (this also applies to lesbian couples, unless one of the partners gets artificially impregnated). Ultimately, I don't know what would be the best legislature on gay marriage. I agree that homosexual relationships should be accepted and not viewed as wrong. However, in many cases it seems difficult to justify all of the financial benefits gays would get by having a standard marriage. Maybe there should be special legislation on gay marriage taking different factors in consideration (e.g. female or a men couple).
Again, see above. The laws predate the relatively modern convention that both parents work, and are from a time where women did not work at all.
Moreover, having separate laws governing the same thing has never, ever worked well at any point in history, regardless of whether or not it makes sense. It's just a bad move, because it generates unrest amongst the segments of the population that get the worse deal. Basically, until the laws are equal, the lobbying to change it is never going to end.
It doesn't matter what the origin of the law is. These laws have changed and developed through the years. Fact is, nowadays financial benefits for couples are a government incentive for family life with the final idea of getting children. Basically the benefits of marriage are a way to secure the future population of the country, especially in Western countries where people have generally become quite materialistic and the general trend is having a few (if any) children, because of the financial diffictulties they create. I agree that in sterile couples and couples who don't want children the marital benefits don't cause the effects the government wants them to, but in same-sex couples there isn't even the chance that those benefits would make them bear children since it is generally biologically impossible for them to do so.
On the other hand you are completely right that separate laws about basically the same thing, would most likely cause unrest in parts of the population. So at the end it is probably the best to grant homosexuals the same marriage rights as heterosexual couples. It still feels partially "unfair" to normal couples.
On July 16 2010 00:27 Ossian wrote: so is the law that all priests have an obligation to marry gay couples or is it just that the state will not interfere?
Like someone said earlier. Getting married by a priest or elvis doesn't make a difference in law. You just need a marriage license.
yeah but does a priest have the right to refuse a couple trying to get married?
Sure he does, that's a religious matter (in fact the US government couldn't tell him he had to marry the couple, separation of church and state).
If the law allows it though, the couple can just go to the church next door that is more friendly to same-sex couples and get married there.
On July 15 2010 22:42 Magic84 wrote: I don't see the point of this marriage. For me marriage is about making and raising offsprings, two people passing on their bloodline together as nature intended, marriage also ensures protection for mother with kid financially most of the time. Without it you can just as well live together without any official procedures and papers.
A lot of same sex marriages are for raising offspring through adoption?
How can people automatically assume that such environment is healthy for the child? Healthy for his interaction with other kids and social life? Isn't it taking human's life worth of a risk for the sake or your own fun and pride?
I would gladly have two fathers or two mothers instead of a father who drinks too much, gets violent and abusive towards my mother, and molests me at night.
But what if there are 2 fathers who'd molest you at night instead, and no mom. See how easy it is to argue this way?
Dude, come off it. You have to realize that what you are arguing (that same-sex parenting is inferior) is wrong wrong wrong, it's like arguing that the Earth isn't round.
There is a consensus among credible scientific researchers which confirms the abilities of gay and lesbian persons as parents, and finds positive outcomes for their children. Statements by the leading associations of experts in this area reflect professional consensus that children raised by lesbian or gay parents do not differ in any important respects from those raised by heterosexual parents. No credible empirical research suggests otherwise.[8]
I mean this is Wikipedia here, not some "loony" gay rights blog. Get your facts straight, Magic84. Also I'll add that nobody is going to bug you if you change your mind on this issue. Actually that would be fantastic.
Scientific arguments have no impact on these people. Remember, there are still a vast number of people who refuse to accept Evolution.
I submit for your perusal http://creationmuseum.org/ That thing opened in 2007. It is a 27 million dollar attempt to show that evolution never happened, and lots of people go to it.
I am waiting for them to declare that the world is flat again.
I still think debate is productive, though. Hearing and considering other people's opinions makes people question their own positions. It may be tempting to categorically dismiss people as not having the intellectual fortitude to examine their beliefs, but that attitude won't change anything.
Yeah I agree, but sometimes it can be frustrating.
It's interesting though how steadily the debate over same-sex marriage is approaching stasis like the debate over creationism. We have one side that has all of the scientific evidence and all of the rational arguments, and on the other side a group of uninformed or obstinate, closed-minded people that are grasping at straws to justify their position.
While I agree in principle that debate is productive, I have to stipulate that I believe it is only productive when the parties to the debate are relatively open-minded. I have a friend from college who's views were mostly based in religion, and he adamantly refused to waver, no matter how persuasive the evidence was. I quickly realized that any argument with him was pointless, since he learned nothing from me, and, since his arguments were easily disproven, I learned nothing from him either. Well, maybe I gained a better understanding of just how stubbornly people will cling to their beliefs, so I guess it wasn't a total loss.
The most frustrating part of the whole business was that he would not only refuse to waver, but his arguments would quickly degenerate into personal attacks. Sadly, I've noticed that this is quite common.
On July 16 2010 00:27 Ossian wrote: so is the law that all priests have an obligation to marry gay couples or is it just that the state will not interfere?
Like someone said earlier. Getting married by a priest or elvis doesn't make a difference in law. You just need a marriage license.
yeah but does a priest have the right to refuse a couple trying to get married?
Yes.
Currently a church and/or priest can deny marriage to anyone and this isn't going to change. Catholic priests don't have to agree to marry Muslims even though Muslims have all the same legal right to marriage as everyone else.
But what if there are 2 fathers who'd molest you at night instead, and no mom. See how easy it is to argue this way?
All gays are pedophiles. This is a fact (at least for some people).
Also, who the fuck cares if someone marries a dog? I don't. How does that affect you either?
On July 16 2010 00:44 GogoKodo wrote: Currently a church and/or priest can deny marriage to anyone and this isn't going to change. Catholic priests don't have to agree to marry Muslims even though Muslims have all the same legal right to marriage as everyone else.
The Catholic Church will marry (as in have a legally moot ceremony) any two straight people so long as one of them is Catholic. Both people need to be christian for it to "count in the eyes of God", however. They'll still give you a marriage ceremony if you marry a non-christian.
On July 15 2010 22:42 Magic84 wrote: I don't see the point of this marriage. For me marriage is about making and raising offsprings, two people passing on their bloodline together as nature intended, marriage also ensures protection for mother with kid financially most of the time. Without it you can just as well live together without any official procedures and papers.
A lot of same sex marriages are for raising offspring through adoption?
How can people automatically assume that such environment is healthy for the child? Healthy for his interaction with other kids and social life? Isn't it taking human's life worth of a risk for the sake or your own fun and pride?
I would gladly have two fathers or two mothers instead of a father who drinks too much, gets violent and abusive towards my mother, and molests me at night.
But what if there are 2 fathers who'd molest you at night instead, and no mom. See how easy it is to argue this way?
Amazing that you missed his point completely. Amazing. /flabbergasted.
It's you who missed mine. Such limited hand picked comparisons are never the answer.
As for so called leading experts in a quote from wiki, who are these experts? You know in some places circumcision of babies is considered a good idea, nobody asks them. Most destructive harms in the world were all the works of the "experts".
Good for Argentina. Perhaps America will eventually separate itself from the stupid church in the near future and there will be equality instead of religion-sponsored segregation!
On July 15 2010 23:15 ggrrg wrote: In principle I don't see a reason why homosexuals shouldn't express their affection for eachother by getting married. However, when you think about it marriage doesn't only mean that you are allowed to have a big celebration, but also comes with many financial priviliges that are meant to encourage couples to be together and get children (e.g. tax cuts, money when you get a child, lower insurance rates, etc.). Most of those financial priviliges exist because for a family it means that they will lose income during the wife's pregnancy and while the child is very young. On top of that women are generally paid less than a man for an equal job. Financial advantages through marriage are meant to counteract those issues. However, in gay couples at least some of those issues don't exist. So what I wonder is: Should married gay couples really recieve all or any of those priviliges?
Same-sex couples often do marry because they want to adopt kids. Why shouldn't they get the same financial privileges? Also there are a lot of straight married couples without kids, too. That women get paid less is a whole different problem which has nothing to do with financial benefits a marriage couple gets (besides a couple of two women should even get more money then).
So yes, they should receive all of those privileges.
Well, when a gay couple adopts a child they have skipped the 9-month pregnancy. If the child is not a newborn they have eventually skipped the first 9-12 months of the child's upbringing, which is a critical period in which a women cannot work. Thus such gay couples wouldn't suffer the loss of income a "normal" couple would have. In addition a women that gets out for pregnancy has severely diminished chances of being promoted (making a career) than both partners in a gay couple that can work without a break, when adopting (this also applies to lesbian couples, unless one of the partners gets artificially impregnated). Ultimately, I don't know what would be the best legislature on gay marriage. I agree that homosexual relationships should be accepted and not viewed as wrong. However, in many cases it seems difficult to justify all of the financial benefits gays would get by having a standard marriage. Maybe there should be special legislation on gay marriage taking different factors in consideration (e.g. female or a men couple).
Again, see above. The laws predate the relatively modern convention that both parents work, and are from a time where women did not work at all.
Moreover, having separate laws governing the same thing has never, ever worked well at any point in history, regardless of whether or not it makes sense. It's just a bad move, because it generates unrest amongst the segments of the population that get the worse deal. Basically, until the laws are equal, the lobbying to change it is never going to end.
It doesn't matter what the origin of the law is. These laws have changed and developed through the years. Fact is, nowadays financial benefits for couples are a government incentive for family life with the final idea of getting children. Basically the benefits of marriage are a way to secure the future population of the country, especially in Western countries where people have generally become quite materialistic and the general trend is having a few (if any) children, because of the financial diffictulties they create. I agree that in sterile couples and couples who don't want children the marital benefits don't cause the effects the government wants them to, but in same-sex couples there isn't even the chance that those benefits would make them bear children since it is generally biologically impossible for them to do so.
On the other hand you are completely right that separate laws about basically the same thing, would most likely cause unrest in parts of the population. So at the end it is probably the best to grant homosexuals the same marriage rights as heterosexual couples. It still feels partially "unfair" to normal couples.
I'll agree with that. And I also agree that there are many laws that are somewhat unfair to subsets of society. But since it is totally impossible to please everyone, a uniform treatment under the law is probably the closest we can come to a universally fair system.
On July 15 2010 22:42 Magic84 wrote: I don't see the point of this marriage. For me marriage is about making and raising offsprings, two people passing on their bloodline together as nature intended, marriage also ensures protection for mother with kid financially most of the time. Without it you can just as well live together without any official procedures and papers.
A lot of same sex marriages are for raising offspring through adoption?
How can people automatically assume that such environment is healthy for the child? Healthy for his interaction with other kids and social life? Isn't it taking human's life worth of a risk for the sake or your own fun and pride?
I would gladly have two fathers or two mothers instead of a father who drinks too much, gets violent and abusive towards my mother, and molests me at night.
But what if there are 2 fathers who'd molest you at night instead, and no mom. See how easy it is to argue this way?
Amazing that you missed his point completely. Amazing. /flabbergasted.
It's you who missed mine. Such limited hand picked comparisons are never the answer.
As for so called leading experts in a quote from wiki, who are these experts? You know in some places circumcision of babies is considered a good idea, nobody asks them. Most destructive harms in the world were all the works of the "experts".
OK then, forget the experts. I say that gay couples can provide a healthy environment for raising children. The end.
I've now brought to the table about as much as you have.
On July 15 2010 22:42 Magic84 wrote: I don't see the point of this marriage. For me marriage is about making and raising offsprings, two people passing on their bloodline together as nature intended, marriage also ensures protection for mother with kid financially most of the time. Without it you can just as well live together without any official procedures and papers.
A lot of same sex marriages are for raising offspring through adoption?
How can people automatically assume that such environment is healthy for the child? Healthy for his interaction with other kids and social life? Isn't it taking human's life worth of a risk for the sake or your own fun and pride?
I would gladly have two fathers or two mothers instead of a father who drinks too much, gets violent and abusive towards my mother, and molests me at night.
But what if there are 2 fathers who'd molest you at night instead, and no mom. See how easy it is to argue this way?
Dude, come off it. You have to realize that what you are arguing (that same-sex parenting is inferior) is wrong wrong wrong, it's like arguing that the Earth isn't round.
There is a consensus among credible scientific researchers which confirms the abilities of gay and lesbian persons as parents, and finds positive outcomes for their children. Statements by the leading associations of experts in this area reflect professional consensus that children raised by lesbian or gay parents do not differ in any important respects from those raised by heterosexual parents. No credible empirical research suggests otherwise.[8]
I mean this is Wikipedia here, not some "loony" gay rights blog. Get your facts straight, Magic84. Also I'll add that nobody is going to bug you if you change your mind on this issue. Actually that would be fantastic.
Scientific arguments have no impact on these people. Remember, there are still a vast number of people who refuse to accept Evolution.
I submit for your perusal http://creationmuseum.org/ That thing opened in 2007. It is a 27 million dollar attempt to show that evolution never happened, and lots of people go to it.
I am waiting for them to declare that the world is flat again.
I still think debate is productive, though. Hearing and considering other people's opinions makes people question their own positions. It may be tempting to categorically dismiss people as not having the intellectual fortitude to examine their beliefs, but that attitude won't change anything.
Yeah I agree, but sometimes it can be frustrating.
It's interesting though how steadily the debate over same-sex marriage is approaching stasis like the debate over creationism. We have one side that has all of the scientific evidence and all of the rational arguments, and on the other side a group of uninformed or obstinate, closed-minded people that are grasping at straws to justify their position.
it's the same with racism. In germany you have a lot of workshops about racism / neo-nazis and how you discuss with / handle them. One of the first points you learn is that when you argue with them / prove them wrong the chance that fanatics switch their opinion is very rarely (close to zero). You still should prove them wrong so people who are undecided (or at least not fanatics) see that their stand point is wrong. So keep that in mind, when you prove them wrong they will most likely not change, but everyone who reads that don't read their stupid stuff without beeing showed that they are just wrong. Still it's of course utterly frustrating.
On July 15 2010 22:42 Magic84 wrote: I don't see the point of this marriage. For me marriage is about making and raising offsprings, two people passing on their bloodline together as nature intended, marriage also ensures protection for mother with kid financially most of the time. Without it you can just as well live together without any official procedures and papers.
A lot of same sex marriages are for raising offspring through adoption?
How can people automatically assume that such environment is healthy for the child? Healthy for his interaction with other kids and social life? Isn't it taking human's life worth of a risk for the sake or your own fun and pride?
I would gladly have two fathers or two mothers instead of a father who drinks too much, gets violent and abusive towards my mother, and molests me at night.
But what if there are 2 fathers who'd molest you at night instead, and no mom. See how easy it is to argue this way?
Amazing that you missed his point completely. Amazing. /flabbergasted.
It's you who missed mine. Such limited hand picked comparisons are never the answer.
As for so called leading experts in a quote from wiki, who are these experts? You know in some places circumcision of babies is considered a good idea, nobody asks them. Most destructive harms in the world were all the works of the "experts".
I would like you to ask what basis you use when you conducted the reasoning that chosing to stick your stick in other men rather than women would somehow diminish your skills when handling children. You're the one with the burden of proof here, ýou're the one stating the ridiculous.
On July 15 2010 22:42 Magic84 wrote: I don't see the point of this marriage. For me marriage is about making and raising offsprings, two people passing on their bloodline together as nature intended, marriage also ensures protection for mother with kid financially most of the time. Without it you can just as well live together without any official procedures and papers.
A lot of same sex marriages are for raising offspring through adoption?
How can people automatically assume that such environment is healthy for the child? Healthy for his interaction with other kids and social life? Isn't it taking human's life worth of a risk for the sake or your own fun and pride?
I would gladly have two fathers or two mothers instead of a father who drinks too much, gets violent and abusive towards my mother, and molests me at night.
But what if there are 2 fathers who'd molest you at night instead, and no mom. See how easy it is to argue this way?
Amazing that you missed his point completely. Amazing. /flabbergasted.
It's you who missed mine. Such limited hand picked comparisons are never the answer.
As for so called leading experts in a quote from wiki, who are these experts? You know in some places circumcision of babies is considered a good idea, nobody asks them. Most destructive harms in the world were all the works of the "experts".
My original point was to address your point that gay parents are unfit to raise children because they may become socially maladjusted or grow up weird. I posed the question as to whether or not you think two mentally deranged straight parents were fit to have children. If you think they're not, then where do you draw the line as to who is allowed to have children? Are gays to be categorically denied the right to raise children because they are "unfit" in some way? Then why do you not believe straight parents to be able to be unfit to raise children?
As for your point on not trusting experts, while it is true that some "experts" have espoused very dangerous beliefs (for example, South Africa's Health Minister in the 90's), there are many more examples of experts creating positives for society. Pasteur and the development of pastuerization and vaccines, for example. Fleming and antibiotics.
And as for your point about circumcision, in some cases circumcision is medically necessitated (for example, in cases of severe infection or inflammation). The medical establishment currently doesn't actively promote circumcision.
On July 16 2010 00:44 Magic84 wrote: As for so called leading experts in a quote from wiki, who are these experts? You know in some places circumcision of babies is considered a good idea, nobody asks them. Most destructive harms in the world were all the works of the "experts".
Dude, go read the studies yourself.
If the argument you are making is really just that "we can't trust experts"...that's ridiculous.
On July 15 2010 22:42 Magic84 wrote: I don't see the point of this marriage. For me marriage is about making and raising offsprings, two people passing on their bloodline together as nature intended, marriage also ensures protection for mother with kid financially most of the time. Without it you can just as well live together without any official procedures and papers.
A lot of same sex marriages are for raising offspring through adoption?
How can people automatically assume that such environment is healthy for the child? Healthy for his interaction with other kids and social life? Isn't it taking human's life worth of a risk for the sake or your own fun and pride?
I would gladly have two fathers or two mothers instead of a father who drinks too much, gets violent and abusive towards my mother, and molests me at night.
But what if there are 2 fathers who'd molest you at night instead, and no mom. See how easy it is to argue this way?
Amazing that you missed his point completely. Amazing. /flabbergasted.
It's you who missed mine. Such limited hand picked comparisons are never the answer.
As for so called leading experts in a quote from wiki, who are these experts? You know in some places circumcision of babies is considered a good idea, nobody asks them. Most destructive harms in the world were all the works of the "experts".
I would like you to ask what basis you use when you conducted the reasoning that chosing to stick your stick in other men rather than women would somehow diminish your skills when handling children. You're the one with the burden of proof here, ýou're the one stating the ridiculous.
I think his point was that children who have two parents of the same gender are more likely to be maladjusted to society (this is actually false). It's a valid point to raise, however.
On July 15 2010 22:42 Magic84 wrote: I don't see the point of this marriage. For me marriage is about making and raising offsprings, two people passing on their bloodline together as nature intended, marriage also ensures protection for mother with kid financially most of the time. Without it you can just as well live together without any official procedures and papers.
A lot of same sex marriages are for raising offspring through adoption?
How can people automatically assume that such environment is healthy for the child? Healthy for his interaction with other kids and social life? Isn't it taking human's life worth of a risk for the sake or your own fun and pride?
I would gladly have two fathers or two mothers instead of a father who drinks too much, gets violent and abusive towards my mother, and molests me at night.
But what if there are 2 fathers who'd molest you at night instead, and no mom. See how easy it is to argue this way?
Amazing that you missed his point completely. Amazing. /flabbergasted.
It's you who missed mine. Such limited hand picked comparisons are never the answer.
As for so called leading experts in a quote from wiki, who are these experts? You know in some places circumcision of babies is considered a good idea, nobody asks them. Most destructive harms in the world were all the works of the "experts".
My original point was to address your point that gay parents are unfit to raise children because they may become socially maladjusted or grow up weird. I posed the question as to whether or not you think two mentally deranged straight parents were fit to have children. If you think they're not, then where do you draw the line as to who is allowed to have children? Are gays to be categorically denied the right to raise children because they are "unfit" in some way? Then why do you not believe straight parents to be able to be unfit to raise children?
As for your point on not trusting experts, while it is true that some "experts" have espoused very dangerous beliefs (for example, South Africa's Health Minister in the 90's), there are many more examples of experts creating positives for society. Pasteur and the development of pastuerization and vaccines, for example. Fleming and antibiotics.
And as for your point about circumcision, in some cases circumcision is medically necessitated (for example, in cases of severe infection or inflammation). The medical establishment currently doesn't actively promote circumcision.
I've been to the south of america many times in my life and I can tell you right now, they have alot of people that are socially maladjusted and really weird, but very few gays. I wonder why.
On July 15 2010 22:42 Magic84 wrote: I don't see the point of this marriage. For me marriage is about making and raising offsprings, two people passing on their bloodline together as nature intended, marriage also ensures protection for mother with kid financially most of the time. Without it you can just as well live together without any official procedures and papers.
A lot of same sex marriages are for raising offspring through adoption?
How can people automatically assume that such environment is healthy for the child? Healthy for his interaction with other kids and social life? Isn't it taking human's life worth of a risk for the sake or your own fun and pride?
I would gladly have two fathers or two mothers instead of a father who drinks too much, gets violent and abusive towards my mother, and molests me at night.
But what if there are 2 fathers who'd molest you at night instead, and no mom. See how easy it is to argue this way?
Amazing that you missed his point completely. Amazing. /flabbergasted.
It's you who missed mine. Such limited hand picked comparisons are never the answer.
As for so called leading experts in a quote from wiki, who are these experts? You know in some places circumcision of babies is considered a good idea, nobody asks them. Most destructive harms in the world were all the works of the "experts".
I would like you to ask what basis you use when you conducted the reasoning that chosing to stick your stick in other men rather than women would somehow diminish your skills when handling children. You're the one with the burden of proof here, ýou're the one stating the ridiculous.
I think his point was that children who have two parents of the same gender are more likely to be maladjusted to society (this is actually false). It's a valid point to raise, however.
It's quite possibly true if you live in a society that violently hates same-sex relationships for no apparent reason.
On July 16 2010 00:27 Ossian wrote: so is the law that all priests have an obligation to marry gay couples or is it just that the state will not interfere?
Like someone said earlier. Getting married by a priest or elvis doesn't make a difference in law. You just need a marriage license.
yeah but does a priest have the right to refuse a couple trying to get married?
Sure he does, that's a religious matter (in fact the US government couldn't tell him he had to marry the couple, separation of church and state).
but the US government CAN tell him he CAN'T marry a couple? how does that not come in between seperation of church and state lol
On July 15 2010 22:42 Magic84 wrote: I don't see the point of this marriage. For me marriage is about making and raising offsprings, two people passing on their bloodline together as nature intended, marriage also ensures protection for mother with kid financially most of the time. Without it you can just as well live together without any official procedures and papers.
A lot of same sex marriages are for raising offspring through adoption?
How can people automatically assume that such environment is healthy for the child? Healthy for his interaction with other kids and social life? Isn't it taking human's life worth of a risk for the sake or your own fun and pride?
I would gladly have two fathers or two mothers instead of a father who drinks too much, gets violent and abusive towards my mother, and molests me at night.
But what if there are 2 fathers who'd molest you at night instead, and no mom. See how easy it is to argue this way?
Amazing that you missed his point completely. Amazing. /flabbergasted.
It's you who missed mine. Such limited hand picked comparisons are never the answer.
As for so called leading experts in a quote from wiki, who are these experts? You know in some places circumcision of babies is considered a good idea, nobody asks them. Most destructive harms in the world were all the works of the "experts".
I would like you to ask what basis you use when you conducted the reasoning that chosing to stick your stick in other men rather than women would somehow diminish your skills when handling children. You're the one with the burden of proof here, ýou're the one stating the ridiculous.
I think his point was that children who have two parents of the same gender are more likely to be maladjusted to society (this is actually false). It's a valid point to raise, however.
It's quite possibly true if you live in a society that violently hates same-sex relationships for no apparent reason.
People have done studies showing that there are pretty much no indications, social or otherwise, that children of same-sex households are different from their peers in any way.
EDIT:
On July 16 2010 00:54 Hynda wrote: I've been to the south of america many times in my life and I can tell you right now, they have alot of people that are socially maladjusted and really weird, but very few gays. I wonder why.
They may only be weird from your perspective. It's fallacious (from a debating perspective) to categorize bible-thumping, ultra-conservative people as "weird" in any way, especially if it's the societal norm. To them, it may be normal, and gay people are the weird ones.
On July 15 2010 22:42 Magic84 wrote: I don't see the point of this marriage. For me marriage is about making and raising offsprings, two people passing on their bloodline together as nature intended, marriage also ensures protection for mother with kid financially most of the time. Without it you can just as well live together without any official procedures and papers.
A lot of same sex marriages are for raising offspring through adoption?
How can people automatically assume that such environment is healthy for the child? Healthy for his interaction with other kids and social life? Isn't it taking human's life worth of a risk for the sake or your own fun and pride?
I would gladly have two fathers or two mothers instead of a father who drinks too much, gets violent and abusive towards my mother, and molests me at night.
But what if there are 2 fathers who'd molest you at night instead, and no mom. See how easy it is to argue this way?
Amazing that you missed his point completely. Amazing. /flabbergasted.
It's you who missed mine. Such limited hand picked comparisons are never the answer.
As for so called leading experts in a quote from wiki, who are these experts? You know in some places circumcision of babies is considered a good idea, nobody asks them. Most destructive harms in the world were all the works of the "experts".
I would like you to ask what basis you use when you conducted the reasoning that chosing to stick your stick in other men rather than women would somehow diminish your skills when handling children. You're the one with the burden of proof here, ýou're the one stating the ridiculous.
I think his point was that children who have two parents of the same gender are more likely to be maladjusted to society (this is actually false). It's a valid point to raise, however.
Indeed I see the point being made, but if you are going to make that point you better have something to back it up with. Were do you draw the line here? Should we not let black people have adopt, because of racism? should we not let people of other religions adopt, because of them having diffrent views of raising children? Or just other ethnicities.
On July 15 2010 22:42 Magic84 wrote: I don't see the point of this marriage. For me marriage is about making and raising offsprings, two people passing on their bloodline together as nature intended, marriage also ensures protection for mother with kid financially most of the time. Without it you can just as well live together without any official procedures and papers.
A lot of same sex marriages are for raising offspring through adoption?
How can people automatically assume that such environment is healthy for the child? Healthy for his interaction with other kids and social life? Isn't it taking human's life worth of a risk for the sake or your own fun and pride?
I would gladly have two fathers or two mothers instead of a father who drinks too much, gets violent and abusive towards my mother, and molests me at night.
But what if there are 2 fathers who'd molest you at night instead, and no mom. See how easy it is to argue this way?
Amazing that you missed his point completely. Amazing. /flabbergasted.
It's you who missed mine. Such limited hand picked comparisons are never the answer.
As for so called leading experts in a quote from wiki, who are these experts? You know in some places circumcision of babies is considered a good idea, nobody asks them. Most destructive harms in the world were all the works of the "experts".
I would like you to ask what basis you use when you conducted the reasoning that chosing to stick your stick in other men rather than women would somehow diminish your skills when handling children. You're the one with the burden of proof here, ýou're the one stating the ridiculous.
I think his point was that children who have two parents of the same gender are more likely to be maladjusted to society (this is actually false). It's a valid point to raise, however.
Indeed I see the point being made, but if you are going to make that point you better have something to back it up with. Were do you draw the line here? Should we not let black people have adopt, because of racism? should we not let people of other religions adopt, because of them having diffrent views of raising children? Or just other ethnicities.
What's the diffrence?
There is no difference. I was just saying that I could see where he was coming from, but that I disagreed with it (and provided my counterargument).
On July 16 2010 00:27 Ossian wrote: so is the law that all priests have an obligation to marry gay couples or is it just that the state will not interfere?
Like someone said earlier. Getting married by a priest or elvis doesn't make a difference in law. You just need a marriage license.
yeah but does a priest have the right to refuse a couple trying to get married?
Sure he does, that's a religious matter (in fact the US government couldn't tell him he had to marry the couple, separation of church and state).
but the US government CAN tell him he CAN'T marry a couple? how does that not come in between seperation of church and state lol
Yeah I can see why you are confused. No the government can't tell a priest whether he can or cannot marry a couple. However it can render the priest's marriage somewhat empty by saying that "ok, you may have 'married' that gay couple but we are not going to recognize them as legally married." Whether the fact that legal marriage of gays is not allowed in a state would discourage/prevent a church from performing a same-sex marriage ceremony I do not know. I guess that would be up to the particular church.
The distinction here is that there is religious marriage or personal marriage, that's what you do at the church or with your family or whatever, and then there's legal marriage, which is the government acknowledging that you are married. Different things. Right now American gays can have religious marriage all over the place, there are many churches / institutions that will marry same-sex couples. The trouble is the legal marriage bit.
Here is something that I wrote in another thread which is relevant and may be useful to you:
On June 28 2010 14:40 JWD wrote: One more thing on this issue: "marriage" is something between two people and their church / family / the marrying institution. It's only the bundle of rights and privileges that come with marriage that are government business at all. Proposing that the government can control whether people marry is like proposing that the government can control whether my favorite color is green. The government might be able to deny me some rights if I say my favorite color is green, but no law is going to change the fact that I like green. Similarly no law is going to change the fact that gay couples are married, and believe they are married, when they undergo a certain ceremony / make a commitment / whatever.
Put another way: you can't tell me that two people who commit to be together exclusively until the day they die (in a marriage ceremony) are "not married" simply because some elected dudes across the country said so. Any gay couple that's been married is married, the government can pretend they're not but that's farcical. The only real issues here are 1) will the government give that couple the rights a straight couple could have and 2) a purely cultural / political one: will the government sanction their marriage by referring to it as such.
This is why "civil unions" (answering yes to question 1 but no to question 2) are unsatisfying: a "civil union" scheme says "ok gays, you can have your rights, but just as a fuck you to you guys, we're not going to call it marriage. ppbbbbbbbbtttt." Seems like a really low, unnecessary, purely animus-motivated blow to gays: simply refusing to acknowledge that they are married.
A lot of same sex marriages are for raising offspring through adoption?
How can people automatically assume that such environment is healthy for the child? Healthy for his interaction with other kids and social life? Isn't it taking human's life worth of a risk for the sake or your own fun and pride?
I would gladly have two fathers or two mothers instead of a father who drinks too much, gets violent and abusive towards my mother, and molests me at night.
But what if there are 2 fathers who'd molest you at night instead, and no mom. See how easy it is to argue this way?
Amazing that you missed his point completely. Amazing. /flabbergasted.
It's you who missed mine. Such limited hand picked comparisons are never the answer.
As for so called leading experts in a quote from wiki, who are these experts? You know in some places circumcision of babies is considered a good idea, nobody asks them. Most destructive harms in the world were all the works of the "experts".
I would like you to ask what basis you use when you conducted the reasoning that chosing to stick your stick in other men rather than women would somehow diminish your skills when handling children. You're the one with the burden of proof here, ýou're the one stating the ridiculous.
I think his point was that children who have two parents of the same gender are more likely to be maladjusted to society (this is actually false). It's a valid point to raise, however.
Indeed I see the point being made, but if you are going to make that point you better have something to back it up with. Were do you draw the line here? Should we not let black people have adopt, because of racism? should we not let people of other religions adopt, because of them having diffrent views of raising children? Or just other ethnicities.
What's the diffrence?
There is no difference. I was just saying that I could see where he was coming from, but that I disagreed with it (and provided my counterargument).
I do realise what he is comming from but it's just taken right out of the blue, and that requires the burden of proof to even be considered.
On July 16 2010 00:15 Magic84 wrote: [quote] How can people automatically assume that such environment is healthy for the child? Healthy for his interaction with other kids and social life? Isn't it taking human's life worth of a risk for the sake or your own fun and pride?
I would gladly have two fathers or two mothers instead of a father who drinks too much, gets violent and abusive towards my mother, and molests me at night.
But what if there are 2 fathers who'd molest you at night instead, and no mom. See how easy it is to argue this way?
Amazing that you missed his point completely. Amazing. /flabbergasted.
It's you who missed mine. Such limited hand picked comparisons are never the answer.
As for so called leading experts in a quote from wiki, who are these experts? You know in some places circumcision of babies is considered a good idea, nobody asks them. Most destructive harms in the world were all the works of the "experts".
I would like you to ask what basis you use when you conducted the reasoning that chosing to stick your stick in other men rather than women would somehow diminish your skills when handling children. You're the one with the burden of proof here, ýou're the one stating the ridiculous.
I think his point was that children who have two parents of the same gender are more likely to be maladjusted to society (this is actually false). It's a valid point to raise, however.
Indeed I see the point being made, but if you are going to make that point you better have something to back it up with. Were do you draw the line here? Should we not let black people have adopt, because of racism? should we not let people of other religions adopt, because of them having diffrent views of raising children? Or just other ethnicities.
What's the diffrence?
There is no difference. I was just saying that I could see where he was coming from, but that I disagreed with it (and provided my counterargument).
I do realise what he is comming from but it's just taken right out of the blue, and that requires the burden of proof to even be considered.
On July 15 2010 22:42 Magic84 wrote: I don't see the point of this marriage. For me marriage is about making and raising offsprings, two people passing on their bloodline together as nature intended, marriage also ensures protection for mother with kid financially most of the time. Without it you can just as well live together without any official procedures and papers.
A lot of same sex marriages are for raising offspring through adoption?
How can people automatically assume that such environment is healthy for the child? Healthy for his interaction with other kids and social life? Isn't it taking human's life worth of a risk for the sake or your own fun and pride?
I would gladly have two fathers or two mothers instead of a father who drinks too much, gets violent and abusive towards my mother, and molests me at night.
But what if there are 2 fathers who'd molest you at night instead, and no mom. See how easy it is to argue this way?
Amazing that you missed his point completely. Amazing. /flabbergasted.
It's you who missed mine. Such limited hand picked comparisons are never the answer.
As for so called leading experts in a quote from wiki, who are these experts? You know in some places circumcision of babies is considered a good idea, nobody asks them. Most destructive harms in the world were all the works of the "experts".
If experts are not to be trusted then how do you know anything about the subject yourself? If you can't trust studies how do you know straight parents are the better option? I'm starting to think Magic is just trolling.
As for you missing his point, you still don't get it seems. That's OK, take all the time you need.
On July 16 2010 00:44 Magic84 wrote: As for so called leading experts in a quote from wiki, who are these experts? You know in some places circumcision of babies is considered a good idea, nobody asks them. Most destructive harms in the world were all the works of the "experts".
Dude, go read the studies yourself.
If the argument you are making is really just that "we can't trust experts"...that's ridiculous.
Why wouldn't you just show raw data and list the people from complied it? If you go reading articles to educate yourself over every debate you stumble upon, it would eat too much time. For balanced profound opinion you need to know everything and you need to take data from multiple sources including the whole absolute of negative data and opinions of all opposition. In the end, it's an amazing, astonishing amount of work, that needs to be done, done by unbiased people too and who can measure bias?
Currently it looks like an attempt to dissolve and ridicule a concept of marriage and whole of society and risks with lives of children to me. It's not just about the interactions with parents, it's about how other kids of same age would take that, how that would alter kid's social status and mental well being, what difference that would make? No expert can dig there in a mind and make indeniable conclusions. And I surely don't want solid cultural foundations to make steps into vague status.
On July 16 2010 00:57 Empyrean wrote: People have done studies showing that there are pretty much no indications, social or otherwise, that children of same-sex households are different from their peers in any way.
I agree with you, but I just wanted to point out that most "sanctity of marriage" rhetoric is based on self reinforcing facts that have no actual bearing in the debate.
A few examples: Gays can't raise children as well as straight couples can. Obviously an unfounded statement, and largely pushed because there's little evidence in either direction (largely due to the fact that gays are often prevented from adopting).
Correlation does not imply causation. If you have gay parents and a fucked up childhood, it might have had more to do with the burning cross on your lawn not your parents having the same set of genitalia.
Most studies that I've seen put a definite correlation between the number of parents and the quality of an upbringing. The gender of either parent doesn't seem to play any significant role. There's no measurable proof of the necessity for a "strong paternal role" or "strong maternal role". These studies included non-traditional parenting such as being raised by grandparents or even good friend of the parents, who had a significant part in a child's life.
If we legalize gay marriage, then there will be more gays. Self-reinforcing idea. If we make it socially more acceptable to be openly gay, closeted gay people might not be closeted anymore! Ya think? There's an estimated 4-5% of the total population that falls into the LGBT catagory, plenty of these people aren't public about for the simple fact that they don't want the social stigma attached to them.
Make homosexuality social acceptable, and yes more people will be open about it.
What's next, marriage with female goats? Zoophiles have rights too. I hope you won't claim that's it's improper comparison, we talk about sexual orientations here, and those are notably common. So what if one is not human, the brain consists of pretty much same neural connections, dogs have feelings and love too. You won't believe how many people would marry a dog, and why would society deprive those people of their rights? And this married couple can always adopt a kid. How can people automatically assume that such environment is healthy for the child? Healthy for his interaction with other kids and social life? Isn't it taking human's life worth of a risk for the sake or your own fun and pride?
Then there's some dude in Japan that married a pillow with anime face on it, let's just make marriage a joke, a vague concept just so everybody can have pride and equality, hell, just abolish marriage, this concept is outdated and unfair.
So this is actually a textbook example of a logical fallacy known as the slippery slope argument. This is an argument that uses the threat of future possible (and usually negative) events to impose fear on others and get them to see your side of the issue. For example: If X happens, then what is stopping Y and Z from happening? To protect ourselves against Y and Z, we shall therefore not allow X.
While it is important to define boundaries in what’s socially or legally ok or not ok in any given society, we must keep in mind that some things change over time. It may one day be ok to legally marry a goat or pillow. As creepy or scary as that may seem, we must always consider the possibility. The correct response to such a possibility is not to prevent events that may lead to such a future, but instead examine things independently on a case by case basis.
Homosexuality was originally frowned upon in certain sects simply because a strong family foundation was better for survival. Adoption or marriage laws didn’t exist, and societies needed people to marry so they may reproduce and create a strong family structure.
Today we no longer have a need for such restrictions. In addition, our philosophical views and civil laws have evolved to a point where it makes sense to allow homosexuals to marry. I would argue that there no longer exists any rational reason that homosexuals couldn’t marry, other than personal or religious views (which we know is not strong enough grounds to base laws upon).
The reason that we don’t allow Zoophiles to marry animals (or Japanese guys to pillows) is because, at this current point in time, we don’t view animals or pillows as consenting or law abiding parties. This may sound very silly, but it’s the truth. In addition, the argument that such a union is disrespectful to the institution of marriage is a bit more valid, as human beings are seen to have more value than an animal or pillow.
Things in life aren’t often in black and white, but the logical or strongly supported arguments against gay marriage are running low. Very often people involuntarily use logical fallacies in trying to create a persuasive point, and we must be careful of that.
It's not just about the interactions with parents, it's about how other kids of same age would take that, how that would alter kid's social status and mental well being, what difference that would make?
This was actually an argument used when inter-racial marriages started to become more popular. We know that if we show acceptance towards homosexuals and their views toward marriage, and raise our children with these values, then things will improve over time. Yes, things may be difficult at first, but we can't let social obstacles stop the spread of civil rights. It's a battle we've fault before, and we can fight it again.
On July 16 2010 00:44 Magic84 wrote: As for so called leading experts in a quote from wiki, who are these experts? You know in some places circumcision of babies is considered a good idea, nobody asks them. Most destructive harms in the world were all the works of the "experts".
Dude, go read the studies yourself.
If the argument you are making is really just that "we can't trust experts"...that's ridiculous.
Why wouldn't you just show raw data and list the people from complied it? If you go reading articles to educate yourself over every debate you stumble upon, it would eat too much time. For balanced profound opinion you need to know everything and you need to take data from multiple sources including the whole absolute of negative data and opinions of all opposition. In the end, it's an amazing, astonishing amount of work, that it needs to be done, done by unbiased people too and who can measure bias?
Currently it looks like an attempt to dissolve and ridicule a concept of marriage and whole of society and risks with lives of children to me. It's not just about the interactions with parents, it's about how other kids of same age would take that, how that would alter kid's social status and mental well being, what difference that would make? No expert can dig there in a mind and make indeniable conclusions, And I surely don't want solid cultural foundations to make steps into vague status.
Any argument based on social acceptance by peers during childhood is fundamentally flawed. Children do not utilize adult social concepts, and adhere to their own social constructs, especially during high school. It has been shown time and time again that adults can exert only minor influence on these social constructs.
The bottom line is, kids are bastards, and will treat each other very poorly given the slightest reason. Saying that having two same-sex parents will adversely effect a child's social acceptance during the school years is not a good argument, and moreover, can be applied to many, many things. By this same logic, you should not allow:
- Males to be cheerleaders - Anyone to join the band - Anyone to perform significantly better in classes than others - Anyone ugly to attend school at all - Anyone to join any chess, math, debate, etc club, basically any pursuit seen as nerdy should not be allowed
I could go on, but you get the point. Any of the above things can easily cause a child to be a social outcast, and nothing, I repeat, NOTHING that adults do will force that child's peers to accept them. (Note: school social constructs are highly varied, and in some places these things are acceptable, other places will cause you to be outcast)
The only arguments that can carry any weight must be based on the child's state of being upon entering the adult world. In that aspect, it has never been shown that having same-sex parents will adversely effect your adult life in any way. I am sure there are exceptions, since just as terrible straight parents exist, I'm sure there are terrible same-sex parents.
I would gladly have two fathers or two mothers instead of a father who drinks too much, gets violent and abusive towards my mother, and molests me at night.
But what if there are 2 fathers who'd molest you at night instead, and no mom. See how easy it is to argue this way?
Amazing that you missed his point completely. Amazing. /flabbergasted.
It's you who missed mine. Such limited hand picked comparisons are never the answer.
As for so called leading experts in a quote from wiki, who are these experts? You know in some places circumcision of babies is considered a good idea, nobody asks them. Most destructive harms in the world were all the works of the "experts".
I would like you to ask what basis you use when you conducted the reasoning that chosing to stick your stick in other men rather than women would somehow diminish your skills when handling children. You're the one with the burden of proof here, ýou're the one stating the ridiculous.
I think his point was that children who have two parents of the same gender are more likely to be maladjusted to society (this is actually false). It's a valid point to raise, however.
Indeed I see the point being made, but if you are going to make that point you better have something to back it up with. Were do you draw the line here? Should we not let black people have adopt, because of racism? should we not let people of other religions adopt, because of them having diffrent views of raising children? Or just other ethnicities.
What's the diffrence?
There is no difference. I was just saying that I could see where he was coming from, but that I disagreed with it (and provided my counterargument).
I do realise what he is comming from but it's just taken right out of the blue, and that requires the burden of proof to even be considered.
Right, I agree.
It would seem to me that part of his post was the doubt that same-sex couples could be as good parents as heterosexual couples. However, it also includes the fear that the child's "social life" could suffer from having homosexual parents. This is actually a pretty valid point.
Aseq wrote: If you ask me, having gay parents isn't really the best situation for kids either (gl in high school, son of a fairy ), but it can be a lot better than the situation they would be in otherwise.
Children can be pretty mean: there you are the only child that has two daddies and everybody makes fun of you. How do you make friends? In high school you will inevitably meet people, who will be incredibly close-minded and being called "son of a fairy" and ostracized is perfectly possible. The fact that you and I view same-sex parents as unproblematic doesn't mean that everybody does. These children will most certainly encounter a lot of people, who will be appalled by the idea that there are gays and that such individuals are actually allowed to have children. In fact, kids with homosexual parents will most certainly have problems in their social life, not because it's their parents' fault, but because society does not accept them. Maybe in several generations society's perception of gays will have changed and nobody will have a negative view on them, but that's not the situation in our times.
On July 16 2010 00:44 Magic84 wrote: As for so called leading experts in a quote from wiki, who are these experts? You know in some places circumcision of babies is considered a good idea, nobody asks them. Most destructive harms in the world were all the works of the "experts".
Dude, go read the studies yourself.
If the argument you are making is really just that "we can't trust experts"...that's ridiculous.
Why wouldn't you just show raw data and list the people from complied it? If you go reading articles to educate yourself over every debate you stumble upon, it would eat too much time. For balanced profound opinion you need to know everything and you need to take data from multiple sources including the whole absolute of negative data and opinions of all opposition. In the end, it's an amazing, astonishing amount of work, that it needs to be done, done by unbiased people too and who can measure bias?
Currently it looks like an attempt to dissolve and ridicule a concept of marriage and whole of society and risks with lives of children to me. It's not just about the interactions with parents, it's about how other kids of same age would take that, how that would alter kid's social status and mental well being, what difference that would make? No expert can dig there in a mind and make indeniable conclusions, And I surely don't want solid cultural foundations to make steps into vague status.
Any argument based on social acceptance by peers during childhood is fundamentally flawed. Children do not utilize adult social concepts, and adhere to their own social constructs, especially during high school. It has been shown time and time again that adults can exert only minor influence on these social constructs.
The bottom line is, kids are bastards, and will treat each other very poorly given the slightest reason. Saying that having two same-sex parents will adversely effect a child's social acceptance during the school years is not a good argument, and moreover, can be applied to many, many things. By this same logic, you should not allow:
- Males to be cheerleaders - Anyone to join the band - Anyone to perform significantly better in classes than others - Anyone ugly to attend school at all - Anyone to join any chess, math, debate, etc club, basically any pursuit seen as nerdy should not be allowed
I could go on, but you get the point. Any of the above things can easily cause a child to be a social outcast, and nothing, I repeat, NOTHING that adults do will force that child's peers to accept them. (Note: school social constructs are highly varied, and in some places these things are acceptable, other places will cause you to be outcast)
The only arguments that can carry any weight must be based on the child's state of being upon entering the adult world. In that aspect, it has never been shown that having same-sex parents will adversely effect your adult life in any way. I am sure there are exceptions, since just as terrible straight parents exist, I'm sure there are terrible same-sex parents.
I am sorry but your reasoning does not seem accurate here. The things you list that might cause social rejection are things that you choose to do. Having same-sex parents and thus becoming a social outcast is something that a kid cannot influence. Your comparison lacks...
Yeah, I'd think (and this is from perspective of a person with two straight parents) that being the child of two same-sex parents would probably be akin to being the child of an interracial couple in America in the fifties.
IMO the general issue of Straight vs. Gay is NOT in parenting quality, guarding the sanctity of traditional marriage or even religious faith, but in the basic natural feeling of resentment of gays, the feeling that comes not from the brain (which may be cooking all the liberal ideas), but from the stomach.
On July 16 2010 00:25 Magic84 wrote: [quote] But what if there are 2 fathers who'd molest you at night instead, and no mom. See how easy it is to argue this way?
Amazing that you missed his point completely. Amazing. /flabbergasted.
It's you who missed mine. Such limited hand picked comparisons are never the answer.
As for so called leading experts in a quote from wiki, who are these experts? You know in some places circumcision of babies is considered a good idea, nobody asks them. Most destructive harms in the world were all the works of the "experts".
I would like you to ask what basis you use when you conducted the reasoning that chosing to stick your stick in other men rather than women would somehow diminish your skills when handling children. You're the one with the burden of proof here, ýou're the one stating the ridiculous.
I think his point was that children who have two parents of the same gender are more likely to be maladjusted to society (this is actually false). It's a valid point to raise, however.
Indeed I see the point being made, but if you are going to make that point you better have something to back it up with. Were do you draw the line here? Should we not let black people have adopt, because of racism? should we not let people of other religions adopt, because of them having diffrent views of raising children? Or just other ethnicities.
What's the diffrence?
There is no difference. I was just saying that I could see where he was coming from, but that I disagreed with it (and provided my counterargument).
I do realise what he is comming from but it's just taken right out of the blue, and that requires the burden of proof to even be considered.
Right, I agree.
It would seem to me that part of his post was the doubt that same-sex couples could be as good parents as heterosexual couples. However, it also includes the fear that the child's "social life" could suffer from having homosexual parents. This is actually a pretty valid point.
Aseq wrote: If you ask me, having gay parents isn't really the best situation for kids either (gl in high school, son of a fairy ), but it can be a lot better than the situation they would be in otherwise.
Children can be pretty mean: there you are the only child that has two daddies and everybody makes fun of you. How do you make friends? In high school you will inevitably meet people, who will be incredibly close-minded and being called "son of a fairy" and ostracized is perfectly possible. The fact that you and I view same-sex parents as unproblematic doesn't mean that everybody does. These children will most certainly encounter a lot of people, who will be appalled by the idea that there are gays and that such individuals are actually allowed to have children. In fact, kids with homosexual parents will most certainly have problems in their social life, not because it's their parents' fault, but because society does not accept them. Maybe in several generations society's perception of gays will have changed and nobody will have a negative view on them, but that's not the situation in our times.
If we waited on all Caucasian Christians to come around to new ideas, we'd still be living in castles and giving our daughters to the king.
On July 16 2010 01:38 Go0g3n wrote: Here's my take:
I don't think the general issue of Straight vs. Gay is in quality of parenting, guarding the sanctity of traditional marriage or even religious faith, but in the basic natural feeling of resentment of gays, the feeling that comes not from the brain (which may be cooking all the liberal ideas), but from the stomach.
On July 16 2010 00:44 Magic84 wrote: As for so called leading experts in a quote from wiki, who are these experts? You know in some places circumcision of babies is considered a good idea, nobody asks them. Most destructive harms in the world were all the works of the "experts".
Dude, go read the studies yourself.
If the argument you are making is really just that "we can't trust experts"...that's ridiculous.
Why wouldn't you just show raw data and list the people from complied it? If you go reading articles to educate yourself over every debate you stumble upon, it would eat too much time. For balanced profound opinion you need to know everything and you need to take data from multiple sources including the whole absolute of negative data and opinions of all opposition. In the end, it's an amazing, astonishing amount of work, that it needs to be done, done by unbiased people too and who can measure bias?
Currently it looks like an attempt to dissolve and ridicule a concept of marriage and whole of society and risks with lives of children to me. It's not just about the interactions with parents, it's about how other kids of same age would take that, how that would alter kid's social status and mental well being, what difference that would make? No expert can dig there in a mind and make indeniable conclusions, And I surely don't want solid cultural foundations to make steps into vague status.
The bottom line is, kids are bastards, and will treat each other very poorly given the slightest reason. Saying that having two same-sex parents will adversely effect a child's social acceptance during the school years is not a good argument, and moreover, can be applied to many, many things. By this same logic, you should not allow:
- Males to be cheerleaders - Anyone to join the band - Anyone to perform significantly better in classes than others - Anyone ugly to attend school at all - Anyone to join any chess, math, debate, etc club, basically any pursuit seen as nerdy should not be allowed
I could go on, but you get the point. Any of the above things can easily cause a child to be a social outcast, and nothing, I repeat, NOTHING that adults do will force that child's peers to accept them. (Note: school social constructs are highly varied, and in some places these things are acceptable, other places will cause you to be outcast)
This a thousand times. No gay marriage because their kids will be made fun of? News flash: kids get made fun of. Ugly? Hot? Skinny? Fat? Tall? Short? Smart? Dumb? Athletic? Not? Wear eyeliner? Don't wear eyeliner? Eat no-name bread with your sandwich? Eat the expensive bread with your sandwich?
I was in downtown yesterday close to the goverment buildings and there were 2 HUGE manifestations, one led by people who wanted the bill to pass and another led by the church... Gladly the church has been losing influence in politics RAPIDLY the last years, as an atheist i cannot be more happy about that.
This thing has been going on for months now, there was actually a couple that got married in the capital after the governor declared it legal, then a supreme cout said it was unconstitutional. Now it seems the debacle is over.
To people talking about civil unions not having the same benefits as marriage, in California the civil union benefits are IDENTICAL to marriage with the exception of literally only the title "marriage" vs "civil union," but the fight for gay marriage is incredibly widespread - so I wouldn't look to that as a solution.
On July 16 2010 01:44 FabledIntegral wrote: To people talking about civil unions not having the same benefits as marriage, in California the civil union benefits are IDENTICAL to marriage with the exception of literally only the title "marriage" vs "civil union," but the fight for gay marriage is incredibly widespread - so I wouldn't look to that as a solution.
It's not a solution. "Separate but equal" has, historically, never worked.
I am sorry but your reasoning does not seem accurate here. The things you list that might cause social rejection are things that you choose to do. Having same-sex parents and thus becoming a social outcast is something that a kid cannot influence. Your comparison lacks...
Actually the only thing lacking is your comprehension skills.
He wasn't saying having gay parents and being in the chess club is the same thing.
He was making the point that if: A child's well being in school is the problem, then you shouldn't ALLOW any kid to put themselves at risk to being teased or bullied. IE-
- Males to be cheerleaders - Anyone to join the band - Anyone to perform significantly better in classes than others - Anyone ugly to attend school at all - Anyone to join any chess, math, debate, etc club, basically any pursuit seen as nerdy should not be allowed
On July 16 2010 00:25 Magic84 wrote: [quote] But what if there are 2 fathers who'd molest you at night instead, and no mom. See how easy it is to argue this way?
Amazing that you missed his point completely. Amazing. /flabbergasted.
It's you who missed mine. Such limited hand picked comparisons are never the answer.
As for so called leading experts in a quote from wiki, who are these experts? You know in some places circumcision of babies is considered a good idea, nobody asks them. Most destructive harms in the world were all the works of the "experts".
I would like you to ask what basis you use when you conducted the reasoning that chosing to stick your stick in other men rather than women would somehow diminish your skills when handling children. You're the one with the burden of proof here, ýou're the one stating the ridiculous.
I think his point was that children who have two parents of the same gender are more likely to be maladjusted to society (this is actually false). It's a valid point to raise, however.
Indeed I see the point being made, but if you are going to make that point you better have something to back it up with. Were do you draw the line here? Should we not let black people have adopt, because of racism? should we not let people of other religions adopt, because of them having diffrent views of raising children? Or just other ethnicities.
What's the diffrence?
There is no difference. I was just saying that I could see where he was coming from, but that I disagreed with it (and provided my counterargument).
I do realise what he is comming from but it's just taken right out of the blue, and that requires the burden of proof to even be considered.
Right, I agree.
It would seem to me that part of his post was the doubt that same-sex couples could be as good parents as heterosexual couples. However, it also includes the fear that the child's "social life" could suffer from having homosexual parents. This is actually a pretty valid point.
Aseq wrote: If you ask me, having gay parents isn't really the best situation for kids either (gl in high school, son of a fairy ), but it can be a lot better than the situation they would be in otherwise.
Children can be pretty mean: there you are the only child that has two daddies and everybody makes fun of you. How do you make friends? In high school you will inevitably meet people, who will be incredibly close-minded and being called "son of a fairy" and ostracized is perfectly possible. The fact that you and I view same-sex parents as unproblematic doesn't mean that everybody does. These children will most certainly encounter a lot of people, who will be appalled by the idea that there are gays and that such individuals are actually allowed to have children. In fact, kids with homosexual parents will most certainly have problems in their social life, not because it's their parents' fault, but because society does not accept them. Maybe in several generations society's perception of gays will have changed and nobody will have a negative view on them, but that's not the situation in our times.
On July 16 2010 00:44 Magic84 wrote: As for so called leading experts in a quote from wiki, who are these experts? You know in some places circumcision of babies is considered a good idea, nobody asks them. Most destructive harms in the world were all the works of the "experts".
Dude, go read the studies yourself.
If the argument you are making is really just that "we can't trust experts"...that's ridiculous.
Why wouldn't you just show raw data and list the people from complied it? If you go reading articles to educate yourself over every debate you stumble upon, it would eat too much time. For balanced profound opinion you need to know everything and you need to take data from multiple sources including the whole absolute of negative data and opinions of all opposition. In the end, it's an amazing, astonishing amount of work, that it needs to be done, done by unbiased people too and who can measure bias?
Currently it looks like an attempt to dissolve and ridicule a concept of marriage and whole of society and risks with lives of children to me. It's not just about the interactions with parents, it's about how other kids of same age would take that, how that would alter kid's social status and mental well being, what difference that would make? No expert can dig there in a mind and make indeniable conclusions, And I surely don't want solid cultural foundations to make steps into vague status.
Any argument based on social acceptance by peers during childhood is fundamentally flawed. Children do not utilize adult social concepts, and adhere to their own social constructs, especially during high school. It has been shown time and time again that adults can exert only minor influence on these social constructs.
The bottom line is, kids are bastards, and will treat each other very poorly given the slightest reason. Saying that having two same-sex parents will adversely effect a child's social acceptance during the school years is not a good argument, and moreover, can be applied to many, many things. By this same logic, you should not allow:
- Males to be cheerleaders - Anyone to join the band - Anyone to perform significantly better in classes than others - Anyone ugly to attend school at all - Anyone to join any chess, math, debate, etc club, basically any pursuit seen as nerdy should not be allowed
I could go on, but you get the point. Any of the above things can easily cause a child to be a social outcast, and nothing, I repeat, NOTHING that adults do will force that child's peers to accept them. (Note: school social constructs are highly varied, and in some places these things are acceptable, other places will cause you to be outcast)
The only arguments that can carry any weight must be based on the child's state of being upon entering the adult world. In that aspect, it has never been shown that having same-sex parents will adversely effect your adult life in any way. I am sure there are exceptions, since just as terrible straight parents exist, I'm sure there are terrible same-sex parents.
I am sorry but your reasoning does not seem accurate here. The things you list that might cause social rejection are things that you choose to do. Having same-sex parents and thus becoming a social outcast is something that a kid cannot influence. Your comparison lacks...
Things such a looks or intelligence aren't chosen by the kid. They work with what they're given.
On July 16 2010 01:37 Empyrean wrote: Yeah, I'd think (and this is from perspective of a person with two straight parents) that being the child of two same-sex parents would probably be akin to being the child of an interracial couple in America in the fifties.
Could anyone weigh in on that?
This sounds like a perfectly reasonable comparison. As I said: Maybe in a few generations it won't be a problem anymore. Right now it is.
Amazing that you missed his point completely. Amazing. /flabbergasted.
It's you who missed mine. Such limited hand picked comparisons are never the answer.
As for so called leading experts in a quote from wiki, who are these experts? You know in some places circumcision of babies is considered a good idea, nobody asks them. Most destructive harms in the world were all the works of the "experts".
I would like you to ask what basis you use when you conducted the reasoning that chosing to stick your stick in other men rather than women would somehow diminish your skills when handling children. You're the one with the burden of proof here, ýou're the one stating the ridiculous.
I think his point was that children who have two parents of the same gender are more likely to be maladjusted to society (this is actually false). It's a valid point to raise, however.
Indeed I see the point being made, but if you are going to make that point you better have something to back it up with. Were do you draw the line here? Should we not let black people have adopt, because of racism? should we not let people of other religions adopt, because of them having diffrent views of raising children? Or just other ethnicities.
What's the diffrence?
There is no difference. I was just saying that I could see where he was coming from, but that I disagreed with it (and provided my counterargument).
I do realise what he is comming from but it's just taken right out of the blue, and that requires the burden of proof to even be considered.
Right, I agree.
It would seem to me that part of his post was the doubt that same-sex couples could be as good parents as heterosexual couples. However, it also includes the fear that the child's "social life" could suffer from having homosexual parents. This is actually a pretty valid point.
Aseq wrote: If you ask me, having gay parents isn't really the best situation for kids either (gl in high school, son of a fairy ), but it can be a lot better than the situation they would be in otherwise.
Children can be pretty mean: there you are the only child that has two daddies and everybody makes fun of you. How do you make friends? In high school you will inevitably meet people, who will be incredibly close-minded and being called "son of a fairy" and ostracized is perfectly possible. The fact that you and I view same-sex parents as unproblematic doesn't mean that everybody does. These children will most certainly encounter a lot of people, who will be appalled by the idea that there are gays and that such individuals are actually allowed to have children. In fact, kids with homosexual parents will most certainly have problems in their social life, not because it's their parents' fault, but because society does not accept them. Maybe in several generations society's perception of gays will have changed and nobody will have a negative view on them, but that's not the situation in our times.
If we waited on all Caucasian Christians to come around to new ideas, we'd still be living in castles and giving our daughters to the king.
So you are ready to make one or two generations of gay couple children have a suffering social life, so in the future such children won't? Harshly said (with a slight exaggeration) you want to "sacrifice" those children for the greater good. Isn't this a little bit unfair to them?
That's not an attack or provocation, but just a thought incentive. By the way, it is perfectly possible that even such a "poor" social life might be better for those children in comparison to being brought up in an orphanage.
I am sorry but your reasoning does not seem accurate here. The things you list that might cause social rejection are things that you choose to do. Having same-sex parents and thus becoming a social outcast is something that a kid cannot influence. Your comparison lacks...
Actually the only thing lacking is your comprehension skills.
He wasn't saying having gay parents and being in the chess club is the same thing.
He was making the point that if: A child's well being in school is the problem, then you shouldn't ALLOW any kid to put themselves at risk to being teased or bullied. IE-
- Males to be cheerleaders - Anyone to join the band - Anyone to perform significantly better in classes than others - Anyone ugly to attend school at all - Anyone to join any chess, math, debate, etc club, basically any pursuit seen as nerdy should not be allowed
Correct. If the argument of social well-being of a child is used to legally disallow something, then we must also disallow anything else that could cause a child to be an outcast. That includes all of the above, and more. Everyone should be wearing the same uniform, have the same haircut, attend the same classes and functions, the list goes on. Legally disallow any naming of a child that is not "normal," so no parents naming their children some name from another language, hippies naming kids Rain, etc. Everyone should eat the same lunch from the same lunchroom. Poor parents should not be allowed children, and neither should rich parents, only parents firmly in a narrow middle class. Mixed-race couples should not have kids. Children of single parents or orphaned children, should not be allowed to attend school at all, since they will never be accepted.
Do all these things seem silly to you? That's because they are. But if you are truly concerned about a child's social acceptance amongst peers, you should be lobbying to illegalize everything that I just listed and more. If you do not, then you are not truly concerned about a child's social acceptance, you are just using that as a flimsy excuse to argue against same-sex couples having children.
I'll state it again, you cannot base any reasonable argument, particularly one advocating legal action, on anything children do internal to their social construct.
On July 16 2010 01:37 Empyrean wrote: Yeah, I'd think (and this is from perspective of a person with two straight parents) that being the child of two same-sex parents would probably be akin to being the child of an interracial couple in America in the fifties.
Could anyone weigh in on that?
This sounds like a perfectly reasonable comparison. As I said: Maybe in a few generations it won't be a problem anymore. Right now it is.
On July 16 2010 00:44 Magic84 wrote: [quote] It's you who missed mine. Such limited hand picked comparisons are never the answer.
As for so called leading experts in a quote from wiki, who are these experts? You know in some places circumcision of babies is considered a good idea, nobody asks them. Most destructive harms in the world were all the works of the "experts".
I would like you to ask what basis you use when you conducted the reasoning that chosing to stick your stick in other men rather than women would somehow diminish your skills when handling children. You're the one with the burden of proof here, ýou're the one stating the ridiculous.
I think his point was that children who have two parents of the same gender are more likely to be maladjusted to society (this is actually false). It's a valid point to raise, however.
Indeed I see the point being made, but if you are going to make that point you better have something to back it up with. Were do you draw the line here? Should we not let black people have adopt, because of racism? should we not let people of other religions adopt, because of them having diffrent views of raising children? Or just other ethnicities.
What's the diffrence?
There is no difference. I was just saying that I could see where he was coming from, but that I disagreed with it (and provided my counterargument).
I do realise what he is comming from but it's just taken right out of the blue, and that requires the burden of proof to even be considered.
Right, I agree.
It would seem to me that part of his post was the doubt that same-sex couples could be as good parents as heterosexual couples. However, it also includes the fear that the child's "social life" could suffer from having homosexual parents. This is actually a pretty valid point.
Aseq wrote: If you ask me, having gay parents isn't really the best situation for kids either (gl in high school, son of a fairy ), but it can be a lot better than the situation they would be in otherwise.
Children can be pretty mean: there you are the only child that has two daddies and everybody makes fun of you. How do you make friends? In high school you will inevitably meet people, who will be incredibly close-minded and being called "son of a fairy" and ostracized is perfectly possible. The fact that you and I view same-sex parents as unproblematic doesn't mean that everybody does. These children will most certainly encounter a lot of people, who will be appalled by the idea that there are gays and that such individuals are actually allowed to have children. In fact, kids with homosexual parents will most certainly have problems in their social life, not because it's their parents' fault, but because society does not accept them. Maybe in several generations society's perception of gays will have changed and nobody will have a negative view on them, but that's not the situation in our times.
If we waited on all Caucasian Christians to come around to new ideas, we'd still be living in castles and giving our daughters to the king.
So you are ready to make one or two generations of gay couple children have a suffering social life, so in the future such children won't? Harshly said (with a slight exaggeration) you want to "sacrifice" those children for the greater good. Isn't this a little bit unfair to them?
That's not an attack or provocation, but just a thought incentive. By the way, it is perfectly possible that even such a "poor" social life might be better for those children in comparison to being brought up in an orphanage.
The ground work has been laid, there is NO considerable proof that having two gay parents makes any difference in a child's adult life. It's not like we are guessing. The only people guessing are people with unyielding personal views. They have provided nothing but opinions, we have provided everything in our power. If you let those people dictate policy then nothing gets changed. <Insert 1 historical fact of your choice here; as an example>
On July 16 2010 01:37 Empyrean wrote: Yeah, I'd think (and this is from perspective of a person with two straight parents) that being the child of two same-sex parents would probably be akin to being the child of an interracial couple in America in the fifties.
Could anyone weigh in on that?
This sounds like a perfectly reasonable comparison. As I said: Maybe in a few generations it won't be a problem anymore. Right now it is.
On July 16 2010 00:44 Magic84 wrote: [quote] It's you who missed mine. Such limited hand picked comparisons are never the answer.
As for so called leading experts in a quote from wiki, who are these experts? You know in some places circumcision of babies is considered a good idea, nobody asks them. Most destructive harms in the world were all the works of the "experts".
I would like you to ask what basis you use when you conducted the reasoning that chosing to stick your stick in other men rather than women would somehow diminish your skills when handling children. You're the one with the burden of proof here, ýou're the one stating the ridiculous.
I think his point was that children who have two parents of the same gender are more likely to be maladjusted to society (this is actually false). It's a valid point to raise, however.
Indeed I see the point being made, but if you are going to make that point you better have something to back it up with. Were do you draw the line here? Should we not let black people have adopt, because of racism? should we not let people of other religions adopt, because of them having diffrent views of raising children? Or just other ethnicities.
What's the diffrence?
There is no difference. I was just saying that I could see where he was coming from, but that I disagreed with it (and provided my counterargument).
I do realise what he is comming from but it's just taken right out of the blue, and that requires the burden of proof to even be considered.
Right, I agree.
It would seem to me that part of his post was the doubt that same-sex couples could be as good parents as heterosexual couples. However, it also includes the fear that the child's "social life" could suffer from having homosexual parents. This is actually a pretty valid point.
Aseq wrote: If you ask me, having gay parents isn't really the best situation for kids either (gl in high school, son of a fairy ), but it can be a lot better than the situation they would be in otherwise.
Children can be pretty mean: there you are the only child that has two daddies and everybody makes fun of you. How do you make friends? In high school you will inevitably meet people, who will be incredibly close-minded and being called "son of a fairy" and ostracized is perfectly possible. The fact that you and I view same-sex parents as unproblematic doesn't mean that everybody does. These children will most certainly encounter a lot of people, who will be appalled by the idea that there are gays and that such individuals are actually allowed to have children. In fact, kids with homosexual parents will most certainly have problems in their social life, not because it's their parents' fault, but because society does not accept them. Maybe in several generations society's perception of gays will have changed and nobody will have a negative view on them, but that's not the situation in our times.
If we waited on all Caucasian Christians to come around to new ideas, we'd still be living in castles and giving our daughters to the king.
So you are ready to make one or two generations of gay couple children have a suffering social life, so in the future such children won't? Harshly said (with a slight exaggeration) you want to "sacrifice" those children for the greater good. Isn't this a little bit unfair to them?
That's not an attack or provocation, but just a thought incentive. By the way, it is perfectly possible that even such a "poor" social life might be better for those children in comparison to being brought up in an orphanage.
The answer is yes. We did it with mixed-race children in the fifties, non-white children in the... actually I don't know when non-white children were first allowed to attend school. But we also did it with women, they weren't allowed to attend school either. All of these changes were made, and were positive. You cannot base anything on whether a child will be socially accepted by peers, you can only base it on the quality of their adult life.
Edit, because this is important : Change is hard. History always focuses on the positive aspects of those that herald change, and ignores the enormous personal trials that they go through. You always hear about how great Martin Luther King Jr. was, you NEVER hear about the enormous amounts of persecution, ridicule, and personal suffering that he went through to bring that change about. But if we do not push through the tough times, then positive change will never occur, because it DOES NOT happen on its own.
On July 16 2010 00:27 Ossian wrote: so is the law that all priests have an obligation to marry gay couples or is it just that the state will not interfere?
Like someone said earlier. Getting married by a priest or elvis doesn't make a difference in law. You just need a marriage license.
yeah but does a priest have the right to refuse a couple trying to get married?
Sure he does, that's a religious matter (in fact the US government couldn't tell him he had to marry the couple, separation of church and state).
If the law allows it though, the couple can just go to the church next door that is more friendly to same-sex couples and get married there.
A lot of people are under the opposite impression. I'm pretty sure there was a huge controversy in California, and it was the reason many people voted "Yes on 8" (Prop 8 to repeal the legality of gay marriage). There was supposedly a case where a priest refused to marry a gay couple, and the gay couple sued because they claimed it was discrimination based on sexual orientation. The priest (or church) supposedly lost the case. Many people who supported the idea of gay marriage, or were wavering, were swayed by the outcome of that case. That's what I've been told by peers. For the first time I tried looking up results myself on this supposed case, and couldn't find anything except "http://mediamatters.org/research/200811100003" which talks about how people were suggesting it would be forced, but would not actually be the case.
However the second article does have a quote in it that states
"Stern said some worry that in jurisdictions that allow same-sex marriages, clergy will be forced to perform the ceremonies, but he called that "a red herring."
"That does not appear to be on the horizon," he said."
On July 15 2010 22:42 Magic84 wrote: I don't see the point of this marriage. For me marriage is about making and raising offsprings, two people passing on their bloodline together as nature intended, marriage also ensures protection for mother with kid financially most of the time. Without it you can just as well live together without any official procedures and papers.
This was a mature way of expressing your opinion. I'll let you in on why it is necessary for same-sex marriages to be legal. Almost all countries grant different rights to married couples than to people who are just "together" in the eyes of the law. A gay couple in America, since they aren't married for instance, doesn't have the same rights as a married couple when hospital/taxes/military/etc... laws come into play. Due to that, everyone should be treated equal right? So allowing them to have married status in the eyes of the law gives them that equality.
Marriage isn't about making and raising offspring, passing on a bloodline or any of that, this is a common myth of marriage. If that were true, sterile couples shouldn't be allowed to be married due to them being sterile. Marriage is a legally binding contract declaring two people as a couple. That is it. In the eyes of the court system, there is nothing religious about it, nor can there be a religious involvement in the courts because it is unconstitutional.
On July 15 2010 23:38 BillyMole wrote:
On July 15 2010 23:32 Keniji wrote:
On July 15 2010 23:15 ggrrg wrote: In principle I don't see a reason why homosexuals shouldn't express their affection for eachother by getting married. However, when you think about it marriage doesn't only mean that you are allowed to have a big celebration, but also comes with many financial priviliges that are meant to encourage couples to be together and get children (e.g. tax cuts, money when you get a child, lower insurance rates, etc.). Most of those financial priviliges exist because for a family it means that they will lose income during the wife's pregnancy and while the child is very young. On top of that women are generally paid less than a man for an equal job. Financial advantages through marriage are meant to counteract those issues. However, in gay couples at least some of those issues don't exist. So what I wonder is: Should married gay couples really recieve all or any of those priviliges?
Same-sex couples often do marry because they want to adopt kids. Why shouldn't they get the same financial privileges? Also there are a lot of straight married couples without kids, too. That women get paid less is a whole different problem which has nothing to do with financial benefits a marriage couple gets (besides a couple of two women should even get more money then).
So yes, they should receive all of those privileges.
Most of the people who are against same-sex marriage would not accept that argument, because they are also totally against those couples being able to adopt. Which has always struck me as the most ludicrous thing about the whole issue, since there are so many kids stuck in the system. It shocks me that these self-proclaimed "family values" people would rather see these kids rot in the system than be adopted by loving parents just because they are gay.
As for the tax breaks, they are not founded on the concepts you mention, they were founded in the era when women did not work at all. The breaks were designed so that one man's income could better support his wife and children. And that is still perfectly valid in a same-sex marriage, since one partner may want to be a stay-at-home parent for the adopted children.
Prejudice like this commonly makes one blind. Being against same-sex marriage makes you prejudiced. There is no logical, legal, philosophical, secular morally-binding methodology to justify being against same-sex marriage. It's commonly a deeply seeded prejudice that has to do with their religious views and/or upbringing. Your religious views or what irks you doesn't give you the right to deny others of rights.
I concur. They're not my views though.
Oh, and separation of church and state is a total farce. While technically a part of our laws, all non-religious arguments against same-sex marriage are spurious, thinly-veiled attempts by people to make their position seem like it's not based on religion. In reality, at least in the U.S., most people are against it because they have been brought up by the church to believe that it is evil. Regrettably, this religious population does still make up the majority of the voting adults, and their senators very much want to be reelected.
Despite the fact that not all Christians are Catholic, it really does come down to the Catholic Church's adamant refusal to adapt. I've seen many other sects of Christianity who either don't care, or wholeheartedly embrace the same-sex members of their congregations. Sadly, the Catholic church is generally seen as representative of the religion, at least in the eyes of the government.
Well possibly the largest reason money-wise why the campaign against same-sex marriage is so intense here is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (in lamens terms, Mormons). Basically there is a lot of evidence that the church invested millions of dollars into the Prop 8 debacle.
On July 15 2010 22:42 Magic84 wrote: I don't see the point of this marriage. For me marriage is about making and raising offsprings, two people passing on their bloodline together as nature intended, marriage also ensures protection for mother with kid financially most of the time. Without it you can just as well live together without any official procedures and papers.
A lot of same sex marriages are for raising offspring through adoption?
What's next, marriage with female goats? Zoophiles have rights too. I hope you won't claim that's it's improper comparison, we talk about sexual orientations here, and those are notably common. So what if one is not human, the brain consists of pretty much same neural connections, dogs have feelings and love too. You won't believe how many people would marry a dog, and why would society deprive those people of their rights? And this married couple can always adopt a kid.
How can people automatically assume that such environment is healthy for the child? Healthy for his interaction with other kids and social life? Isn't it taking human's life worth of a risk for the sake or your own fun and pride?
Then there's some dude in Japan that married a pillow with anime face on it, let's just make marriage a joke, a vague concept just so everybody can have pride and equality, hell, just abolish marriage, this concept is outdated and unfair.
It's a logical fallacy, refrain from using it. Basically the slippery slope was used for blacks and whites getting married, for blacks desegregation in schools, etc... It was wrong every time to use that fallacious argument style. If you want to have an intelligent discussion in the future, refrain from logical fallacies.
For your 2nd point, you are automatically assuming that it's NOT safe for a child. There is no evidence either way, so this point is invalid and should not be part of your opinion. What independent studies have been done on the social life (however this could be scientifically measured) of children from gay couples in comparison to those from straight couples. I can tell you right now in America the average straight couple gets a divorce, has a single mother, is in poverty, and the children have very low education standards/results. It doesn't get much worse than that already.
That's Japan, over there, they can't have Gay marriages either, transsexuals/transgendered persons cannot be recognized legally as their transitioned sex, etc... The gay-trans rights in Japan are horrific when compared to the rest of the world, and socially they are ignored for the most part. Just recently have gays begun to be seen as human beings, thanks to, surprisingly, the antics of the gay stereotype "Hard Gay".
If you are using one of these 5 arguments in these videos, you should rethink your position since it is on very shaky ground philosophically and morally.
I am sorry but your reasoning does not seem accurate here. The things you list that might cause social rejection are things that you choose to do. Having same-sex parents and thus becoming a social outcast is something that a kid cannot influence. Your comparison lacks...
Actually the only thing lacking is your comprehension skills.
He wasn't saying having gay parents and being in the chess club is the same thing.
He was making the point that if: A child's well being in school is the problem, then you shouldn't ALLOW any kid to put themselves at risk to being teased or bullied. IE-
- Males to be cheerleaders - Anyone to join the band - Anyone to perform significantly better in classes than others - Anyone ugly to attend school at all - Anyone to join any chess, math, debate, etc club, basically any pursuit seen as nerdy should not be allowed
Correct. If the argument of social well-being of a child is used to legally disallow something, then we must also disallow anything else that could cause a child to be an outcast. That includes all of the above, and more. Everyone should be wearing the same uniform, have the same haircut, attend the same classes and functions, the list goes on. Legally disallow any naming of a child that is not "normal," so no parents naming their children some name from another language, hippies naming kids Rain, etc. Everyone should eat the same lunch from the same lunchroom. Poor parents should not be allowed children, and neither should rich parents, only parents firmly in a narrow middle class. Mixed-race couples should not have kids. Children of single parents or orphaned children, should not be allowed to attend school at all, since they will never be accepted.
Do all these things seem silly to you? That's because they are. But if you are truly concerned about a child's social acceptance amongst peers, you should be lobbying to illegalize everything that I just listed and more. If you do not, then you are not truly concerned about a child's social acceptance, you are just using that as a flimsy excuse to argue against same-sex couples having children.
I'll state it again, you cannot base any reasonable argument, particularly one advocating legal action, on anything children do internal to their social construct.
I never argued that homosexual couples shouldn't have children. In fact, I said that I support them. The whole point of my previous posts was to show that there is room for consideration if it is always beneficial to children to be adopted by gay parents. By doing this you might impose a negative situation on these children that could have been avoided (unlike being "fat/ugly/stupid", which you can rarely change). Hypothetically, it could have been better for the child to live its youth in the orphanage than to have loving parents but no social life at all. + Show Spoiler +
This is also the response to the comment you posted next. The examples you give about the past all included the possibility of the people involved to choose if they wanted to take the hard path or not. You cannot choose if you want to be adopted by homosexuals. + Show Spoiler +
Trivia: In Germany courts do disallow names that might be problematic for children. There have been multiple cases in the most recent past. + Show Spoiler +
Final statement: "I never argued that homosexual couples shouldn't have children. In fact, I said that I support them.The whole point of my previous posts was to show that there is room for consideration if it is always beneficial to children to be adopted by gay parents." This being said, I don't think there is any reason for me to dive any further into this argument. It was meant to be merely a thought incentive. In fact, I believe that gay couples should be allowed to have children, since this way the children will probably recieve more love, better education, and generally a better start in life. I actually think that only a very tiny percentage of such children will face significant problems in their social life and that even less of them will have a worse adult life this way than they would have if they spent their childhood in an orphanage.
On July 16 2010 01:37 Empyrean wrote: Yeah, I'd think (and this is from perspective of a person with two straight parents) that being the child of two same-sex parents would probably be akin to being the child of an interracial couple in America in the fifties.
Could anyone weigh in on that?
This sounds like a perfectly reasonable comparison. As I said: Maybe in a few generations it won't be a problem anymore. Right now it is.
On July 16 2010 01:39 keV. wrote:
On July 16 2010 01:34 ggrrg wrote:
On July 16 2010 01:11 Empyrean wrote:
On July 16 2010 01:10 Hynda wrote:
On July 16 2010 00:59 Empyrean wrote:
On July 16 2010 00:58 Hynda wrote:
On July 16 2010 00:52 Empyrean wrote:
On July 16 2010 00:51 Hynda wrote: [quote] I would like you to ask what basis you use when you conducted the reasoning that chosing to stick your stick in other men rather than women would somehow diminish your skills when handling children. You're the one with the burden of proof here, ýou're the one stating the ridiculous.
I think his point was that children who have two parents of the same gender are more likely to be maladjusted to society (this is actually false). It's a valid point to raise, however.
Indeed I see the point being made, but if you are going to make that point you better have something to back it up with. Were do you draw the line here? Should we not let black people have adopt, because of racism? should we not let people of other religions adopt, because of them having diffrent views of raising children? Or just other ethnicities.
What's the diffrence?
There is no difference. I was just saying that I could see where he was coming from, but that I disagreed with it (and provided my counterargument).
I do realise what he is comming from but it's just taken right out of the blue, and that requires the burden of proof to even be considered.
Right, I agree.
It would seem to me that part of his post was the doubt that same-sex couples could be as good parents as heterosexual couples. However, it also includes the fear that the child's "social life" could suffer from having homosexual parents. This is actually a pretty valid point.
Aseq wrote: If you ask me, having gay parents isn't really the best situation for kids either (gl in high school, son of a fairy ), but it can be a lot better than the situation they would be in otherwise.
Children can be pretty mean: there you are the only child that has two daddies and everybody makes fun of you. How do you make friends? In high school you will inevitably meet people, who will be incredibly close-minded and being called "son of a fairy" and ostracized is perfectly possible. The fact that you and I view same-sex parents as unproblematic doesn't mean that everybody does. These children will most certainly encounter a lot of people, who will be appalled by the idea that there are gays and that such individuals are actually allowed to have children. In fact, kids with homosexual parents will most certainly have problems in their social life, not because it's their parents' fault, but because society does not accept them. Maybe in several generations society's perception of gays will have changed and nobody will have a negative view on them, but that's not the situation in our times.
If we waited on all Caucasian Christians to come around to new ideas, we'd still be living in castles and giving our daughters to the king.
So you are ready to make one or two generations of gay couple children have a suffering social life, so in the future such children won't? Harshly said (with a slight exaggeration) you want to "sacrifice" those children for the greater good. Isn't this a little bit unfair to them?
That's not an attack or provocation, but just a thought incentive. By the way, it is perfectly possible that even such a "poor" social life might be better for those children in comparison to being brought up in an orphanage.
The ground work has been laid, there is NO considerable proof that having two gay parents makes any difference in a child's adult life. It's not like we are guessing. The only people guessing are people with unyielding personal views. They have provided nothing but opinions, we have provided everything in our power. If you let those people dictate policy then nothing gets changed. <Insert 1 historical fact of your choice here; as an example>
On July 16 2010 00:44 Magic84 wrote: As for so called leading experts in a quote from wiki, who are these experts? You know in some places circumcision of babies is considered a good idea, nobody asks them. Most destructive harms in the world were all the works of the "experts".
Dude, go read the studies yourself.
If the argument you are making is really just that "we can't trust experts"...that's ridiculous.
Why wouldn't you just show raw data and list the people from complied it? If you go reading articles to educate yourself over every debate you stumble upon, it would eat too much time. For balanced profound opinion you need to know everything and you need to take data from multiple sources including the whole absolute of negative data and opinions of all opposition. In the end, it's an amazing, astonishing amount of work, that needs to be done, done by unbiased people too and who can measure bias?
Currently it looks like an attempt to dissolve and ridicule a concept of marriage and whole of society and risks with lives of children to me. It's not just about the interactions with parents, it's about how other kids of same age would take that, how that would alter kid's social status and mental well being, what difference that would make? No expert can dig there in a mind and make indeniable conclusions. And I surely don't want solid cultural foundations to make steps into vague status.
You, as a person making an assertion, are REQUIRED to have evidence to back up your point. You made an assertion, obviously, that it is bad for children, so you have to prove that. When evidence is shown to disagree with your opinion, you are not allowed to get away with "well show me the evidence" an Infinitesimal amount of times, that's called willful ignorance. It's intellectual dishonesty, and it is NOT debating.
This is why someone accurately drew a parallel earlier to young earth creationists and them believing that the earth is 6000-10000 years old and that evolution is a lie. You can show them the evidence, ask them for evidence that goes against your evidence, they show you, then you prove it wrong, and then they say "well show me the evidence" over and over without acknowledging what you showed them. Extreme personal bias doesn't make you RIGHT, no matter how passionately you WANT to believe something.
Here's some more evidence. I'd advise people who think that same-sex marriages are bad for the kids look to the scientific research that was conducted for proof.
I don't believe marriage should be a function of the state. It only became a state institution here in the US because of visiting rights in hospitals and then evolved into a nightmare of legislation involving taxes and other things.
You shouldn't be able to force a religious institution to do something that they don't want. What if a homosexual couple wants to be married by a priest, does the priest have the right to decline? Who knows? Everyone in the United States is now forced to buy a product or pay a fine.
I don't have the right to force my views on others, but nobody has the right to force their views on me.
On July 16 2010 03:26 Jenbu wrote: I don't believe marriage should be a function of the state. It only became a state institution here in the US because of visiting rights in hospitals and then evolved into a nightmare of legislation involving taxes and other things.
You shouldn't be able to force a religious institution to do something that they don't want. What if a homosexual couple wants to be married by a priest, does the priest have the right to decline? Who knows? Everyone in the United States is now forced to buy a product or pay a fine.
I don't have the right to force my views on others, but nobody has the right to force their views on me.
As mentioned above, the legal system cannot force priests to do anything. It's a paranoid argument that has no basis in fact. A priest can refuse to marry a same-sex couple for any reason he wants, just as they can refuse to marry straight couples for any reason. When my wife and I got married in the church in her hometown, we had to jump through a whole bunch of hoops to meet their criteria. Otherwise, the church would have refused to marry us.
On July 15 2010 22:52 Amber[LighT] wrote: $20 says that this thread will be closed due to excessive controversial discussion that turns into a flame war.
I am personally thrilled that Argentina is making these steps forward. After working for a gay boss over the past two years my perception on homosexuality as a whole has been completely turned upside down. There's really no reason for two men or two women to get married aside from the religious aspect, at least that's what it seems like nowadays. To be honest I don't know why I was against gay marriage prior to 2008 anyway. Bah brainwashing
The can adopt as a couple now. If one of them adopted (say a guy by her own) and started living with another man and the first man died. The child would be left alone in the streets.
On July 15 2010 23:15 ggrrg wrote: In principle I don't see a reason why homosexuals shouldn't express their affection for eachother by getting married. However, when you think about it marriage doesn't only mean that you are allowed to have a big celebration, but also comes with many financial priviliges that are meant to encourage couples to be together and get children (e.g. tax cuts, money when you get a child, lower insurance rates, etc.). Most of those financial priviliges exist because for a family it means that they will lose income during the wife's pregnancy and while the child is very young. On top of that women are generally paid less than a man for an equal job. Financial advantages through marriage are meant to counteract those issues. However, in gay couples at least some of those issues don't exist. So what I wonder is: Should married gay couples really recieve all or any of those priviliges?
Same-sex couples often do marry because they want to adopt kids. Why shouldn't they get the same financial privileges? Also there are a lot of straight married couples without kids, too. That women get paid less is a whole different problem which has nothing to do with financial benefits a marriage couple gets (besides a couple of two women should even get more money then).
So yes, they should receive all of those privileges.
Well, when a gay couple adopts a child they have skipped the 9-month pregnancy.
A gay couple can rent an uterus, which costs a lot of money.
Also, if an heterosexual couple adopts a child they skip the 9-month pregnancy as well. They still get the benefits.
On July 15 2010 23:15 ggrrg wrote: In principle I don't see a reason why homosexuals shouldn't express their affection for eachother by getting married. However, when you think about it marriage doesn't only mean that you are allowed to have a big celebration, but also comes with many financial priviliges that are meant to encourage couples to be together and get children (e.g. tax cuts, money when you get a child, lower insurance rates, etc.). Most of those financial priviliges exist because for a family it means that they will lose income during the wife's pregnancy and while the child is very young. On top of that women are generally paid less than a man for an equal job. Financial advantages through marriage are meant to counteract those issues. However, in gay couples at least some of those issues don't exist. So what I wonder is: Should married gay couples really recieve all or any of those priviliges?
Same-sex couples often do marry because they want to adopt kids. Why shouldn't they get the same financial privileges? Also there are a lot of straight married couples without kids, too. That women get paid less is a whole different problem which has nothing to do with financial benefits a marriage couple gets (besides a couple of two women should even get more money then).
So yes, they should receive all of those privileges.
Well, when a gay couple adopts a child they have skipped the 9-month pregnancy.
A gay couple can rent an uterus, which costs a lot of money.
Also, if an heterosexual couple adopts a child they skip the 9-month pregnancy as well. They still get the benefits.
Shhh, don't let a little logic get in the way of him! Them heteros, who have on average like two or three babies over the course of a marriage, get lifelong benefits because the wife is physically unable to work due to child birth for 27 months!
On July 15 2010 23:15 ggrrg wrote: In principle I don't see a reason why homosexuals shouldn't express their affection for eachother by getting married. However, when you think about it marriage doesn't only mean that you are allowed to have a big celebration, but also comes with many financial priviliges that are meant to encourage couples to be together and get children (e.g. tax cuts, money when you get a child, lower insurance rates, etc.). Most of those financial priviliges exist because for a family it means that they will lose income during the wife's pregnancy and while the child is very young. On top of that women are generally paid less than a man for an equal job. Financial advantages through marriage are meant to counteract those issues. However, in gay couples at least some of those issues don't exist. So what I wonder is: Should married gay couples really recieve all or any of those priviliges?
Same-sex couples often do marry because they want to adopt kids. Why shouldn't they get the same financial privileges? Also there are a lot of straight married couples without kids, too. That women get paid less is a whole different problem which has nothing to do with financial benefits a marriage couple gets (besides a couple of two women should even get more money then).
So yes, they should receive all of those privileges.
Well, when a gay couple adopts a child they have skipped the 9-month pregnancy.
A gay couple can rent an uterus, which costs a lot of money.
Also, if an heterosexual couple adopts a child they skip the 9-month pregnancy as well. They still get the benefits.
Shhh, don't let a little logic get in the way of him! Them heteros, who have on average like two or three babies over the course of a marriage, get lifelong benefits because the wife is physically unable to work due to child birth for 27 months!
It seems like both of you decided against reading the whole thread... But I'd gladly cherry-pick the relevant parts for you:
On July 15 2010 23:15 ggrrg wrote: In principle I don't see a reason why homosexuals shouldn't express their affection for eachother by getting married. However, when you think about it marriage doesn't only mean that you are allowed to have a big celebration, but also comes with many financial priviliges that are meant to encourage couples to be together and get children (e.g. tax cuts, money when you get a child, lower insurance rates, etc.). Most of those financial priviliges exist because for a family it means that they will lose income during the wife's pregnancy and while the child is very young. On top of that women are generally paid less than a man for an equal job. Financial advantages through marriage are meant to counteract those issues. However, in gay couples at least some of those issues don't exist. So what I wonder is: Should married gay couples really recieve all or any of those priviliges?
Same-sex couples often do marry because they want to adopt kids. Why shouldn't they get the same financial privileges? Also there are a lot of straight married couples without kids, too. That women get paid less is a whole different problem which has nothing to do with financial benefits a marriage couple gets (besides a couple of two women should even get more money then).
So yes, they should receive all of those privileges.
Well, when a gay couple adopts a child they have skipped the 9-month pregnancy. If the child is not a newborn they have eventually skipped the first 9-12 months of the child's upbringing, which is a critical period in which a women cannot work. Thus such gay couples wouldn't suffer the loss of income a "normal" couple would have. In addition a women that gets out for pregnancy has severely diminished chances of being promoted (making a career) than both partners in a gay couple that can work without a break, when adopting (this also applies to lesbian couples, unless one of the partners gets artificially impregnated). Ultimately, I don't know what would be the best legislature on gay marriage. I agree that homosexual relationships should be accepted and not viewed as wrong. However, in many cases it seems difficult to justify all of the financial benefits gays would get by having a standard marriage. Maybe there should be special legislation on gay marriage taking different factors in consideration (e.g. female or a men couple).
Again, see above. The laws predate the relatively modern convention that both parents work, and are from a time where women did not work at all.
Moreover, having separate laws governing the same thing has never, ever worked well at any point in history, regardless of whether or not it makes sense. It's just a bad move, because it generates unrest amongst the segments of the population that get the worse deal. Basically, until the laws are equal, the lobbying to change it is never going to end.
It doesn't matter what the origin of the law is. These laws have changed and developed through the years. Fact is, nowadays financial benefits for couples are a government incentive for family life with the final idea of getting children. Basically the benefits of marriage are a way to secure the future population of the country, especially in Western countries where people have generally become quite materialistic and the general trend is having a few (if any) children, because of the financial diffictulties they create. I agree that in sterile couples and couples who don't want children the marital benefits don't cause the effects the government wants them to, but in same-sex couples there isn't even the chance that those benefits would make them bear children since it is generally biologically impossible for them to do so.
On the other hand you are completely right that separate laws about basically the same thing, would most likely cause unrest in parts of the population. So at the end it is probably the best to grant homosexuals the same marriage rights as heterosexual couples. It still feels partially "unfair" to normal couples.
Lesbian couples have a chance of carrying their child through artificial insemination. If anything, the economic advantages of marriage benefit lesbian couples the most. The work wives generally make less than their male counterparts.
It's not as simple as saying, because many homosexual couples can not take full advantage of the government subsidies (lets be honest that's what that is), there should be a separate clause in it for them. Like a poster said before, "separate but equal" doesn't work well.
That's one small step for man, and one giant leap for Argentina.
Cliched allusions aside, I've always believed that homophobia is just a stones throw away from racism, anti-semitism, etc. because it revolves around the ugly core idea of prejudice and hate. With the amount of mindless hate for homosexuals in this world brooding itself to despicable masses in schools, extremist churches - even politics, (if it was a legendary moment of history to wtfpwn all the KKK and racist redneck douchebags of the US by electing a black president, then imagine the impact of electing a gay one) I thought for sure we had taken one step forward and three long strides back. Thankfully Argentina is here to save the day.
In Canada, I feel that the level of acceptance for homosexuality here is drastically higher than the southern states or middle eastern countries. (I'm pretty sure you can have a civil gay marriage, that is with a judge, but I'm not sure about a religious one. I'll have to check up on that.) Make no mistake, It's been a battle for us to convert all the narrowminded, pinheaded pricks to accepting, logically thinking individuals. It's a battle we're still fighting and will forever fight, but even if one homosexual can be shielded from the disgust, isolation, and alienation that festers within the plague of prejudice, then our efforts were successful. To quote Pierre Trudeau, former Prime Minister, "Canada does not belong in the bedrooms of the nation." That is to say, stop feeling so insecure by enforcing the need to judge people over their private lifestyles, which in no feasible way brings harm to another human being.
Prejudice taints our minds when we are afraid of something different and allow ourselves to feed that fear, accepting misinformation without making an introspective analysis but rather joining the bandwagon of hate. People need to actually stop and think for themselves, and I know that's asking a lot but you must trust me on this one. It's irrelevant whether or not babies are genetically born gay, or what a 2000 year old book written in a completely different society preaches, or what political figureheads think can be distinguished as black and white with being gay. The point is to love someone for the love they give and the love you recieve. That doesn't require the ancient formula of man + woman = marriage to make it "feel right." Man + Man or Woman + Woman = relationship, whether it be expressed sexually or not. Some people view this as a chink in armor, an imperfection of nature, but that simply isn't the case because if you are someone judging that armor chink, that imperfection, then you're refusing to look beyond surfaces, instead feeling dissapointed or dismayed by what you first find. I think the most beautiful and fascinating things in the universe are those we find mysterious.
If I was gay I wouldnt wanna marry in a church for people who have degraded me for around 2 thousand years but if they want if ofcourse they should be allowed to.
On July 16 2010 15:34 Sl4ktarN wrote: If I was gay I wouldnt wanna marry in a church for people who have degraded me for around 2 thousand years but if they want if ofcourse they should be allowed to.
Argentina did not legalize religious marriage. They legalized civil marriage for same-sex couples.
On July 15 2010 22:42 Magic84 wrote: I don't see the point of this marriage. For me marriage is about making and raising offsprings, two people passing on their bloodline together as nature intended, marriage also ensures protection for mother with kid financially most of the time. Without it you can just as well live together without any official procedures and papers.
A lot of same sex marriages are for raising offspring through adoption?
if you want kids to become mentally scarred through teasing at school because they have 2 dads then go for it
it's akin to child abuse , you are naive to think bullying won't happen to these kids from other kids at school
On July 15 2010 22:42 Magic84 wrote: I don't see the point of this marriage. For me marriage is about making and raising offsprings, two people passing on their bloodline together as nature intended, marriage also ensures protection for mother with kid financially most of the time. Without it you can just as well live together without any official procedures and papers.
A lot of same sex marriages are for raising offspring through adoption?
if you want kids to become mentally scarred through teasing at school because they have 2 dads then go for it
it's akin to child abuse , you are naive to think bullying won't happen to these kids from other kids at school
kids bully kids anyways, your argument could be used against many, many other groups.
On July 15 2010 22:42 Magic84 wrote: I don't see the point of this marriage. For me marriage is about making and raising offsprings, two people passing on their bloodline together as nature intended, marriage also ensures protection for mother with kid financially most of the time. Without it you can just as well live together without any official procedures and papers.
A lot of same sex marriages are for raising offspring through adoption?
if you want kids to become mentally scarred through teasing at school because they have 2 dads then go for it
it's akin to child abuse , you are naive to think bullying won't happen to these kids from other kids at school
And you are naive to think that bullying only occurs on people who have gay parents. Kids are bullied due to a plethora of reasons. Just because this could possibly be one does not mean gay marriage shouldn't be allowed. Instead, we could get rid of this bullying by explaining to kids there is absolutely nothing wrong with being gay.
On July 15 2010 22:42 Magic84 wrote: I don't see the point of this marriage. For me marriage is about making and raising offsprings, two people passing on their bloodline together as nature intended, marriage also ensures protection for mother with kid financially most of the time. Without it you can just as well live together without any official procedures and papers.
A lot of same sex marriages are for raising offspring through adoption?
if you want kids to become mentally scarred through teasing at school because they have 2 dads then go for it
it's akin to child abuse , you are naive to think bullying won't happen to these kids from other kids at school
Kids are bullied because one parent is white while another is black. Do you think we should ban interracial marriage too?
You're naive to think your argument is anything but ridiculous.
Absolutely awesome. I'm really pumped that another country is progressive enough to legalize same-sex marriage. I can only hope that other countries follow suit.
The argument that the kids might get (probably) bullied and therefore same-sex marriage should be forbidden is an invalid argument (like all the others). Even without the fact that there are tons of other groups and stuff kids get bullied for, the idea of forbidding someone because they might get bullied for is stupid. That wouldn't be even close to be a liberal country. Imagine a country where everything someone else might not like and say it out loud (I mean, you get bullied therefore it's harm for you and therefore you shouldn't be allowed to do so) is forbidden.
If you want so, you could argue that same-sex couples should think twice about adopting a children because of their narrow-minded, pathetic neighbors when they have the feeling that their new family can't handle it. But that's up to the same-sex couple if they do have that feeling or not. It's nothing you should forbid by law.
It's akin to child abuse. really? first of all, it wouldn't be the parents fault. second they most likely wouldn't get more bullied than any "weird" else. If it really would get that bad that you could call it child abuse you might consider punishing the bully (or their parents if they actually supporting this) but not forbid the same-sex marriage at all.
Surprised so few argentinians posted here. Huge news. Im a catholic, straight guy, and i am in favor of this new law... However i am worried about adoption. Legally, they can't adopt as a couple, and as stated before, if both step dads (or moms) die, the child will be on the street. They will soon ask for legalized adoption as a couple, and im not sure i endorse that. Im not fully against it, neither. It just feels wrongish.
However, it's a big step. Slowly, we're all accepting we're all the same. The world is a little bit better since yesterday.
On July 16 2010 23:07 Tresh wrote: Surprised so few argentinians posted here. Huge news. Im a catholic, straight guy, and i am in favor of this new law... However i am worried about adoption. Legally, they can't adopt as a couple, and as stated before, if both step dads (or moms) die, the child will be on the street. They will soon ask for legalized adoption as a couple, and im not sure i endorse that. Im not fully against it, neither. It just feels wrongish.
However, it's a big step. Slowly, we're all accepting we're all the same. The world is a little bit better since yesterday.
Why are you against adoption of children by gay couples?
On July 16 2010 23:07 Tresh wrote: Surprised so few argentinians posted here. Huge news. Im a catholic, straight guy, and i am in favor of this new law... However i am worried about adoption. Legally, they can't adopt as a couple, and as stated before, if both step dads (or moms) die, the child will be on the street. They will soon ask for legalized adoption as a couple, and im not sure i endorse that. Im not fully against it, neither. It just feels wrongish.
Wait, wait. How is this different for when both parents of any child die?
Well, in argentina gays can get married and in italy they are even forbidden from donating blood, aint that nice, makes you feel real good about your country.
On July 17 2010 00:33 Bluestar- wrote: Well, in argentina gays can get married and in italy they are even forbidden from donating blood, aint that nice, makes you feel real good about your country.
I think it was a result of the AIDS epidemic in the 80's and early 90's. Homosexuals were then more likely to have HIV, so they were banned from donating blood. It's the same in the U.S.
Well probably so, but you see its not fear of HIV or something, even if you do tests and stuff to prove you dont have it, you're still not allowed to because you are gay, for example (this was in the newspaper) this guy was donating blood since he was 8, but when he wrote gay under sexual orientation on the papers they give you to compile, they told him he cant donate anymore. Also this isnt a law or anything, its just hospital policy.
Yeah, I remember at a blood drive in high school, my friend (who is gay) was pretty upset at the fact that he wasn't allowed to donate blood for that reason. It never quite made sense to me that it's still banned regardless of HIV testing =/
On July 17 2010 02:36 Valentine wrote: Yeah, I remember at a blood drive in high school, my friend (who is gay) was pretty upset at the fact that he wasn't allowed to donate blood for that reason. It never quite made sense to me that it's still banned regardless of HIV testing =/
That is why you lie for that question. They test the blood anyway.
On July 15 2010 22:42 Magic84 wrote: I don't see the point of this marriage. For me marriage is about making and raising offsprings, two people passing on their bloodline together as nature intended, marriage also ensures protection for mother with kid financially most of the time. Without it you can just as well live together without any official procedures and papers.
Marriage is a social union or legal contract between individuals that creates kinship. It is an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged in a variety of ways, depending on the culture or subculture in which it is found.
@ wikipedia See how there is not a single word about children? It is because that is not the most improtant in marriage. You marry when you love someone not when you want to breed with someone.
So all those King and Queens of the past who were married in order to create an heir etc. is what?
Also it is interesting that a country in S. America has more social Freedoms than the U.S.
On July 16 2010 04:18 Empyrean wrote: Actually, Argentina is a very well developed country with a large, diversified industrial sector and a high standard of living.
Don't want to sound like attacking the US or anything, but most s. american countries have more social freedom and are much better at privacy than the US. There's some really BAD ones, but they are only a handfull.
On July 15 2010 22:42 Magic84 wrote: I don't see the point of this marriage. For me marriage is about making and raising offsprings, two people passing on their bloodline together as nature intended, marriage also ensures protection for mother with kid financially most of the time. Without it you can just as well live together without any official procedures and papers.
Marriage is a social union or legal contract between individuals that creates kinship. It is an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged in a variety of ways, depending on the culture or subculture in which it is found.
@ wikipedia See how there is not a single word about children? It is because that is not the most improtant in marriage. You marry when you love someone not when you want to breed with someone.
So all those King and Queens of the past who were married in order to create an heir etc. is what?
Also it is interesting that a country in S. America has more social Freedoms than the U.S.
On July 16 2010 04:18 Empyrean wrote: Actually, Argentina is a very well developed country with a large, diversified industrial sector and a high standard of living.
It's actually quite true, especially compared to the rest of the world. The United States may have greater wealth and standard of living, but compared to other questions, Argentina is quite above average in many indicators.
On July 15 2010 22:42 Magic84 wrote: I don't see the point of this marriage. For me marriage is about making and raising offsprings, two people passing on their bloodline together as nature intended, marriage also ensures protection for mother with kid financially most of the time. Without it you can just as well live together without any official procedures and papers.
A lot of same sex marriages are for raising offspring through adoption?
if you want kids to become mentally scarred through teasing at school because they have 2 dads then go for it
it's akin to child abuse , you are naive to think bullying won't happen to these kids from other kids at school
That's really quite sad of you. I grew up with a lisp, and was made fun of it constantly. So it was child-abuse for my parents to send me to school? Children will get made fun of for almost anything. Did I become mentally scarred? Probably, I still hate how I sound and I carefully avoid words with certain letters. Was my parents gay, no.... So hmm
EPT
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/mirror/smilies/shiny.gif)
